Circuit court finds Port of Tallinn case defendants not guilty

The second-tier Tallinn Circuit Court has ruled that all possible crimes relating to the so-called Port of Tallinn case have expired, meaning criminal proceedings have been terminated. The defendants are to be reimbursed €930,000 in legal costs.
Last summer, the first-tier Harju County Court acquitted the defendants in the case, which had lasted five and a half years at that point in time, on the grounds that the alleged crimes were committed in the private sector, meaning they had passed a statute of limitations by then.
The circuit court agreed with the county court that the alleged bribery activities took place in the private sector.
The court stated: "The individuals at the heart of the proceedings – including Port of Tallinn board members Ain Kaljurand and Allan Kiil, as well as maintenance department head Martin Paide – did not perform a public function in the acts described in the indictment and were not considered officials under the Anti-Corruption Act or the Penal Code."
"The acts described in the indictment – primarily the giving and receiving of bribes – match up with the elements of bribery offenses committed in the private sector, under the Penal Code," the circuit court noted.
The court found that neither the Port of Tallinn nor the board members of its subsidiary TS Laevad were considered officials when procuring docking services or ferries, since their activities did not take place in the context of performing a public function. The delegation of a public task by the state does not automatically mean that each decision by a related private legal entity acquires public-law significance, the court found.
The court found that the Port of Tallinn organized port services at its own commercial risk, and that the resources and services were procured at its own expense as well. Since there was no direct impact on the rights of the state or third parties, while the management board's decisions were approved by the Port of Tallinn's supervisory board, conditions for defining them as officials under the bribery provisions of the Penal Code had not been met. This meant it was not possible to hold the individuals liable as public officials in relation to bribery offenses.
The circuit court also noted that the absolute limitation period for punishing these acts had already expired in respect of most of the defendants, while for the most recent episodes it would have expired by March 2, 2025, at the latest. The expiration of the limitation period constitutes an absolute procedural obstacle, hence the court terminating the criminal proceedings.
The circuit court annulled several earlier acquittals by the county court, while at the same time reclassifying those acts as bribery offenses in the private sector, meaning these proceedings were terminated due to expiration as well.
The decisions concerned, for example, defendant Martin Paide's activities in the Keskkonnahoolduse OÜ episode, and the actions of defendants Toivo Promm and Jan Paszkowski in the context of ferry procurements.
On money laundering charges, the county court's decision acquitting Kaljurand and Promm remained in force, as the elements of the money laundering offense had not been fulfilled.
The circuit court noted that when dealing with money laundering cases, the court had to establish all prior bribery offenses described in the indictment, even if these had expired as of the time of the decision.
The circuit court rejected the plaintiffs' appeal regarding the dismissal of the civil action. It also dismissed the applications by defense lawyers and third parties which challenged the decisions on compensation for damages caused in the course of the criminal proceedings.
The circuit court partly upheld the appeals by defense lawyers and third parties regarding procedural costs, ordering the Republic of Estonia to pay more than €930,000 in total to the benefit of the defendants.
The circuit court decision is not yet final and can be appealed with the Supreme Court within 30 days.
Allan Kiil passed away in June 2021.
Prosecutor's Office: Defendants were in fact acting in public capacity
The Prosecutor's Office disagrees with the courts and finds that the Port of Tallinn chiefs were in fact acting in public roles, and as such should still be tried as public officials.
Kristo Adosson, district prosecutor for economic and corruption crimes, said: "The prosecution has consistently maintained that the former board members of Port of Tallinn, Ain Kaljurand and Allan Kiil, performed public duties assigned by the state in their role as heads of a state-owned company."
"In the view of the prosecution, the indictment's positions are supported by various legal provisions, the government's directive establishing the state-owned company, as well as the articles of association of the state-owned company," Adosson went on.
"Based on today's decision, it can still be concluded that referring the criminal case to the court in 2017 was justified. Unfortunately, the justice system was unable to resolve the case within the time frame set for adjudicating second-degree crimes," Adosson added.
Despite this, the prosecution says it will review the circuit court's decision before deciding whether to take the case to the Supreme Court.
Summing up, the prosecution says that there is much for all to learn from the Port of Tallinn court proceedings, which have lasted more than 10 years, including one and a half years at pre-trial proceedings.
"On the table in the Riigikogu's table is a draft amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which includes several proposals to expedite general proceedings and also improve the handling of economic and corruption crimes," Adosson added.
"For instance, the amendments aim to streamline the presentation of evidence and prevent situations that currently result in delays in proceedings," Adosson noted.
In addition, the Prosecutor's Office says it sees a need to improve internal workflows.
"A team-based approach makes work more efficient in complex economic and corruption crime cases, where preparing an indictment alone may require going through thousands, tens of thousands, or in the case of these proceedings, even 18,000 pages of case file material," said Adosson.
Editor's note: This article was updated to include comments from the Prosecutor's Office.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook, Bluesky and X and never miss an update!
Editor: Andrew Whyte