On March 18 last year, Tallinn Circuit Court overturned the previous acquittal by Harju County Court in the Porto Franco case and issued a new verdict, finding Hillar Teder, former Center Party secretary general Mihhail Korb and the Center Party guilty of influence peddling.

The defense lawyers representing Korb, Teder and the Center Party had appealed for the ruling made by Tallinn Circuit Court to be overturned.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled it would leave the circuit court's decision unchanged, but supplemented the reasoning behind the ruling. The appeals were also dismissed. The court also dismissed requests from the defense lawyers to compensate the defendants for the costs of the proceedings.

The sentences imposed by Tallinn Circuit Court therefore remain in force.

The circuit court previously sentenced Teder to one year and five months in prison, specifying that his prison sentence would not be enforced in full if Teder does not commit a new intentional crime during a two-year probation period.

The court also sentenced Korb to one year and two months in prison, likewise specifying that his prison sentence would not be enforced in full if Korb does not commit a new intentional crime during two years of probation.

The Center Party, meanwhile, was sentenced to a pecuniary punishment of €750,000. The court then increased the punishment for the new offense by €250,000 – the amount still outstanding from a previous pecuniary punishment to which the party was sentenced by Harju County Court on September 5, 2019 – bringing the Center Party's aggregate punishment to a total of €1 million.

The second-tier court found that the existence of an influence peddling agreement dating back to February 9, 2020 had been established. To that end, the court found that the influence peddling agreement was sufficiently specific, meaning that the expected action had been determined and that this was not some sort of abstract agreement.

The court determined that the donation Teder had offered the Center Party was quid pro quo to Korb, who had promised to influence the mayor of Tallinn. Korb had also expressed acceptance of this so-called donation to that end. Thus, the parties had at least broadly agreed on how and toward what objective someone should start working, according to the ruling.

Tallinn Circuit Court found that on February 9, 2020, when Hillar Teder offered the Center Party the so-called donation during a meeting with party secretary general Mihhail Korb, such an agreement was unambiguously perceptible.

Teder had wanted to reach an agreement swiftly regarding the dispute between his associated company Porto Franco and the municipality over the easement fee, which was based on the conclusion of a €100 million loan agreement. The Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court that the conclusion of an influence peddling agreement between Hillar Teder and Mihhail Korb had been proven.

The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that entering into an agreement whereby the promisor or provider of property or other benefits believes (even if potentially mistakenly) that they will succeed in obtaining some kind of substantial advantage from a public official as a result. Regardless of the objective pursued, the mere conclusion of an agreement of this type undermines confidence in the integrity of public authorities.

The Supreme Court explained that the influence of one person over another may derive from their official position or social status. While it may be concluded that the capacity to influence a public official is primarily vested in a person of a higher position or a person close to them, it may also be vested in another person. In the view of the Supreme Court, the circuit court had reasoned convincingly that Korb was in a position to influence the mayor's will and decisions by virtue of his power to influence the running of the political party.

The Center Party's defense team accused the circuit court of failing to take into account the party's financial situation when deciding on the sentence. The Supreme Court explained that since the sentence is intended to cause the perpetrator tangible losses, a person's vulnerability to punishment has to be assessed in the context of the time the sentence was imposed. In light of the party's revenue and expenditure for 2023, the financial penalty of €750,000 was not, in the court's view, excessive.

In 2023, Harju County Court initially acquitted all the defendants in their entirety in the case, as in the view of judge Aime Ivanson,, there was no influence peddling in relation to Porto Franco.

---

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