State Prosecutor: Swedbank proceedings ended after delayed evidence was obtained

The mere fact that the initial crime in the now wrapped-up Swedbank money-laundering case was processed by the Russian court system does not immediately give grounds to automatically assume that the political motives were at play, State Prosecutor Sigrid Nurm says.
However, insufficient evidence reached the office which would have enable the investigation to progress. Doubt arose primarily in connection with the determination of share prices, and the case was terminated when this information had arrived.
The Prosecutor's Office on Thursday announced that it had closed up criminal proceedings regarding any potential money laundering activities at Swedbank between the years 2011 and 2016, on the grounds that while the evidence identified activities and violations indicating possible money laundering at the bank, sufficient evidence was lacking to prove these suspicions and of funds having any criminal origin. This means there is no case to be sent to the courts.
ERR asked the prosecutor's office why they even considered it conceivable that the decisions emanating from a Russian court could constitute evidence, considering the politicized nature of that country's judicial system, and that said lack of judicial independence is hardly a new thing.
Additionally for consideration here is the full-scale war in Ukraine entering its third year; the lower intensity insurgency war in eastern Ukraine now a decade old, and the recent death in suspicious circumstances of opposition figure Alexei Navalny.
The judge in the Mikhail Abyzov case in Russia is reportedly the very same judge that sentenced both Navalny and tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died in captivity in 2009.
State Prosecutor Sigrid Nurm (pictured) said the fact alone that the initial alleged crime was processed in Russia does not on its own give immediate grounds for assuming that it is a purely politically biased or otherwise unreliable case, however.
Nurm said: "The data collected at the start of the proceedings, not only received Russia, but also from various European countries plus the US, supports the accuracy of the charges made in Russia."
"Remaining doubts arose primarily in connection with the determination of the sale price of shares, and this information reached the prosecutor's office only when the defense request was resolved; it was referred to by the international audits made in relation to the company, whose existence the Estonian law enforcement authorities had been previously unaware of and so had in now way earlier been able to access them," Nurm continued.
Nurm added that even now it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty that the Russian judgment was certainly biased; since doubts have arisen which should be checked before the court proceedings, the only way to do so would have been by requesting additional evidence from the Russian authorities.
"Since all legal cooperation with Russia has ended as of now, plus it would be irresponsible to send a criminal case to court based on pure assumption, it must be noted that there is no scope to eliminate doubt," she went on.
Nurm added that when prosecuting money laundering as a crime it is not viable to pick and choose which country the crime has been committed in.
Automatically excluding some countries whose understandings of the legal system do not coincide with Estonian criminal law concepts would enable criminals to plan their activities based on the knowledge that their activities in a given country would not be investigated.
"If it were possible to go to court, an Estonian court would have the opportunity to assess the initial crime that took place in Russia also, but in order to do that the base evidence is required."
Nurm noted that under current law it is no longer a requirement to prove that the money which has been laundered derives from a specific crime, and the suspicion of such is sufficient. However, the regulation in force at the time in relation to the Swedbank case required the detection of an initial crime, also setting a particularly high burden of proof standard.
Nurm said it is currently common judicial practice that in money laundering proceedings, victims or witnesses from a foreign state give evidence in relation to an initial crime, and a court bases its decision from this as to whether an initial crime has been proven or not. In the case in question, however, due to the lack of international cooperation, this had not been feasible.
When asked who was responsible for essentially destroying the reputation and careers of some former top managers at Swedbank, ie. the suspects, Nurm replied that the presumption of innocence applies in Estonia, hence why the prosecutor's office has not published the suspects' names or any details of their activities during or after the termination of the proceedings.
"The prosecutor's office does not rule on whether people can get a job, or whether they are suitable to work in the financial arena," the prosecutor went on.
"Money laundering charges were levied against all the suspects, but no one has been found guilty of specific acts. Sadly, it is inevitable that conducting criminal proceedings will bring inconvenience to all individuals suspected of a potential crime, and investigating the suspicions that have arisen is a duty assigned to the prosecutor's office, by law," she went on.
Nurm noted that legal norms in Estonia require initiating a criminal case and verifying suspicions in cases of potential crimes, and since this was a criminal proceeding which carried with it great public interest, where violations were detected regarding the bank's activities aimed at preventing money laundering, the prosecutor's office outlined to the public the procedural decision and what had been established in the proceedings, in general terms.
Current, former justice ministers considered it inappropriate to express an opinion
Former justice minister Maris Lauri (Reform), in office at the time the suspicion was presented regarding Swedbank, and the current minister, Kalle Laanet (Reform), both said they did not find it appropriate to comment on the case.
Minister Laanet said: "The prosecutor's office is an independent body, and they do not answer to any political leadership.
The minister added that he had been informed about the decision and the publication of a press release on the matter, but has not communicated with the prosecutor's office more thoroughly on this.
Maris Lauri meanwhile said she was: "Still of the opinion that, in such a position, I cannot comment on the actions of the prosecutor's office."
Regarding reputational damage to some of Swedbank's former top management, Lauri said that that was responsibility of the prosecutor's office, who made the decisions.
She said: "Ultimately, they always need to assess when embarking on an investigation into any matter whether it is justified, whether it has prospects, and how far to pursue it; that is their decision to make. It is their choice, and when we examine any potential criminal investigations, I think it is correct that when there is a suspicion of a crime, it must be investigated as such."
She added that the question is always the length of time of an investigation, its scope, and how much is in the public interest, ie. should be made public.
In the case of a suspected crime, the Estonian legal system and the constitution assume that it must be investigated, but investigators in the police or prosecutor's office always have an obligation to assess what they are doing and for how long.
"And also, it is certain, to announce your rationale when, for whatever reason, an investigation can no longer be continued," Lauri added.
Lauri said that the credibility of the Russian legal system has always been debatable, so one can never know if something is feasible or not; whether it is true or false.
"People can cooperate very well, or they can choose not to. They can deliberately give false information, both incriminating, and vindicating. It has always been difficult to cooperate with Russia," the ex-minister continued.
Kalle Laanet added that in the state of Estonia, it is very clearly defined as to who is responsible for what.
"In this sense, it is also clear whether and what has happened regarding this procedure and whether there have been any violations. Unfortunately, it is so that if you are the subject of criminal proceedings, there can be damage to your reputation incurred in any case. Whether that can be compensated for or not is another question," Laanet went on.
In March 2022, the Prosecutor's Office launched a criminal investigation against Swedbank Estonia and some of its former executives due to suspicions of money laundering of a value of more than €100 million.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Andrew Whyte