The fraud charge against Repinski stemmed from his time as a member of the Riigikogu, during which he submitted a request for reimbursement of his rent. However, according to the accusation, Repinski did not actually live at the address listed in the expense claim nor did he pay rent associated with that address.

Additionally, Repinski had access to a fuel card intended for covering fuel expenses related to his work as a member of the Riigikogu. The embezzlement charge alleged that between November 2021 and April 2022, he purchased, and allowed others to purchase, a total of 459 liters of diesel fuel using the card, which was not connected to his parliamentary duties.

The breach of trust charge was related to his time as mayor of Jõhvi. In March 2019, Repinski was accused of unjustifiably awarding severance packages equivalent to six months' salary to three officials who voluntarily left their positions.

In the breach of trust charge, the court acquitted Repinski, stating that the purpose of criminal law is not to resolve disputes about whether someone correctly interpreted the regulations of the Public Service Act.

"The violation of the obligation to protect property interests can only be considered if the action causes unreasonable harm to the victim. Not every managerial mistake or violation of the Public Service Act or another legal act constitutes a criminal offense of breach of trust. Consideration must also be given to the extent to which the payment of severance was based on the defendant's belief that it was a necessary expense to achieve the victim's goals. Therefore, not every expense incurred constitutes a violation of the obligation to protect the victim's property interests or harm," the court noted.

The court also considered it significant that the six-month severance payments made to the officials who were released from service had been previously discussed with the financial director and legal advisor of the Jõhvi municipal government. Furthermore, the evidence did not show that Repinski had even indirect intent regarding the financial damage of €40,000 – severance proposals were made to the officials only in terms of months, not specific amounts, without knowing the exact salary figures, the court noted.

In the fraud charge related to rent reimbursement by the Riigikogu, the court also acquitted Repinski.

The court acknowledged that paying rent in cash and the circumstances surrounding the use of the rental apartment could have initially raised reasonable doubts about whether rent was ever actually paid and the purpose of renting the apartment. However, these doubts were not sufficient, in the court's view, to issue a conviction.

The acquittal was due to the fact that the indirect evidence presented to the court did not allow for a firm conclusion that the events described in the indictment likely occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, the court stated.

Therefore, the court did not find that Repinski had submitted false information to the Office of the Riigikogu regarding the rental of the apartment, his residence there and the payment of rent.

Additionally, the court noted that a criminal court cannot rectify the textual and substantive deficiencies of the law regarding the status of a member of the Riigikogu and the procedure for reimbursing housing expenses. The law and reimbursement procedure do not, for example, state that a member of the Riigikogu must confirm that when receiving a rent reimbursement, they have no other place to live or stay in Tallinn or its vicinity. Nor do the law and procedure regulate that a member of the Riigikogu may not own real estate in Tallinn or its vicinity when receiving rent reimbursement or specify how many days per year a Riigikogu member must live in the rented apartment to justify the reimbursement.

Thus, the court noted that setting more precise conditions for reimbursing rent expenses for Riigikogu members falls under the legislature's authority, not the criminal court's jurisdiction.

Regarding the embezzlement charge related to the use of the Riigikogu member's Olerex fuel card on eight occasions, the court also acquitted Repinski.

Considering the limited regulation and unclear implementation practices of expense reimbursements, the court deemed it justified to consider the first five refuelings as related to the work of a Riigikogu member.

"These five individual refuelings and trips occurred over a very short period, during which several COVID-19 restrictions were in place, making it difficult to organize public gatherings and meet with constituents. The court is convinced that Repinski discussed this in the Riigikogu faction and was able to provide feedback from people who used Bolt rides on various issues, including COVID-19 restrictions," the court noted.

Regarding the three remaining instances of fuel refueling, there was no dispute that someone else used the fuel card. However, the court could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Repinski had given or allowed a third party to use his Riigikogu member's fuel card for non-work-related trips. The suspicion remained that the fuel card might have been used without Martin Repinski's knowledge.

In one instance of fuel refueling, Repinski admitted to mistakenly using the Riigikogu member's fuel card and reimbursed the Office of the Riigikogu for the expense, amounting to nearly €100, during the court proceedings.

The court added that given that Riigikogu members are not required to keep a logbook for work-related trips or submit other reports on distances traveled, destinations and actual fuel consumption, such minimal regulation allows for confusion about which trips can be considered work-related. It also provides an opportunity to misuse the fuel card, which could undoubtedly be prevented by amending the reimbursement procedure for work-related expenses of Riigikogu members.

The court dismissed the civil claims of the victims due to the acquittal.

The court reduced the procedural costs and ordered the state to reimburse Repinski €49,826 for the fees paid to his chosen defense attorney and €7,579 to cover the fees paid to the chosen representative of the victim, Jõhvi Municipality.

The district court's decision has not yet entered into force.

Prosecution disagrees

According to the Prosecutor's Office, it is significant that the court, based on the evidence, established the factual circumstances presented in the charges –
meaning that the actions underlying the charges did indeed occur as described. However, the Prosecutor's Office disagrees with the legal assessment that the court applied to these actions, said State Prosecutor Alan Rüütel.

"The court today only issued the operative part of the decision and briefly explained in the courtroom how it reached its conclusion. However, the explanations given in court were not sufficient to alter the Prosecutor's Office's view regarding the charges presented," he noted.

The court's opinion that the rules related to the reimbursement of expenses for members of the Riigikogu are too broadly interpretable does not change the Prosecutor's Office's position that expense reimbursements should only be used for tasks directly related to the work of a Riigikogu member, Rüütel stated.

"Public funds must be used transparently and responsibly, and in the Prosecutor's Office's view, it is possible to apply a criminal law assessment to such actions even under the current reimbursement rules," he remarked.

"Therefore, we are awaiting the full court decision to review the court's reasoning in its entirety. After that, we will analyze the court's arguments and decide to what extent we will challenge the decision of the Harju County Court in the Tallinn Circuit Court," Rüütel said.

The article was updated to add comments from the Prosecutor's Office.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!