The Harju County Court ruled that the sentence for Kert Kingo will not be enforced if she does not commit another crime within two years.

Martin Traat was sentenced to six months in prison for aiding in fraud. His sentence will also remain unenforced if he does not commit another crime within one year.

According to the charges, Kert Kingo submitted invoices from a law firm to the Riigikogu for reimbursement, which indicated various consulting services related to her duties as a member of parliament. However, the law firm had not provided these services in connection with her work as a member of the Riigikogu.

The prosecution claimed that Kingo used falsified invoices to have the Riigikogu cover legal fees for individuals unrelated to parliamentary work. Lawyer Martin Traat was accused of forging the invoices, having his law firm include false information on the invoices under Kingo's direction.

Both Kingo and Traat were allegedly aware that the services were not related to her duties as a member of the Riigikogu. Instead, the law firm provided services to unrelated individuals, but Kingo submitted the invoices to have the Riigikogu cover the costs as part of her parliamentary expense reimbursements.

The key points of contention were whether the legal services provided by Traat were related to Kingo's parliamentary duties and whether Kingo understood that her actions were illegal.

In court, Kingo explained that five of the six invoices were connected to three civil lawsuits that she believed had harmed her reputation, which in her view were related to her work as a member of the Riigikogu.

The court agreed that one of the six invoices could be related to her parliamentary work.

However, the court found that the remaining five invoices were either falsified or too vague, and did not reflect the actual services provided. These civil cases had no connection to Kingo or her work as a member of the Riigikogu, and thus there was no basis for submitting these legal expenses for reimbursement from the Riigikogu's budget.

Based on the evidence presented, the court concluded that both Kert Kingo and Martin Traat were aware their actions were prohibited. Furthermore, the court found that any misunderstanding on Kingo's part regarding the legality of her actions could have been easily avoided.

Kert Kingo is required to pay the state €1,230 as a compensation levy for being convicted of a second-degree crime.

The court partially granted the request from Kingo's attorney, Oliver Nääs, to cover procedural costs, awarding a total of €5,655.21. Similarly, Martin Traat's defense attorney, Jaak Siim, was granted €3,708.50.

The remaining defense costs must be borne by the defendants themselves.

The court also partially upheld the Office of the Riigikogu's civil claim, ordering Kert Kingo to pay €7,146 under the Law of Obligations Act.

The Harju County Court's decision has not yet entered into force.

Kingo: A political trial

In a comment to ERR, Kert Kingo stated that the Harju County Court's decision proves the case is politically motivated.

"I want to point out that the Prosecutor's Office has previously stated that the Riigikogu's expense reimbursements are not subject to criminal proceedings. A member of the Riigikogu has broad discretion and self-determination rights, and only the member themselves can define what is related to their expense reimbursements, meaning a criminal investigation cannot be conducted on this matter," Kingo said.

She also noted that other members of the Riigikogu, when found to have incorrectly used expense reimbursements, were simply asked to return the funds. "Kert Kingo is the only one for whom an exception has been made, and a criminal investigation was launched. This is unequal treatment and highly hypocritical," she added.

Kingo confirmed that she would appeal the court's ruling. "Yes, we have a three-tier court system, so the decision will be appealed," she said.

Kingo's defense attorney, Oliver Nääs, also told Delfi that they will appeal the court's decision, describing the case as a "very principled dispute."

"I disagree with the reasoning, as the earlier practice of the Prosecutor's Office has clearly treated the reimbursement regulations as very general. They have left it to members of the Riigikogu to decide which expenses are related to their work and which are not," he said.

--

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