On July 1, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise said that some agencies had been accessing various banking data, including account statements, through the enforcement register without a legal basis. She said state agencies made tens of thousands of such requests to banks over a year.

Perling said the situation in which several state agencies used the enforcement register for a year and a half without a clear legal basis was the result of a convergence of circumstances.

"The political level failed to do its job. They did not know what was going on in the state. The executive branch took advantage of the opportunity that it was simply possible to act that way. And thirdly, the lowest-ranking official did their job thinking they were doing something lawful. But in my opinion, there is no point in focusing on the past — on what was or how it was — we need to focus on the present and the future," she said.

The Parempoolsed chairman said the most important thing right now is to notify people whose banking data were accessed unlawfully and without justification, and the state should apologize to them.

"Second, there is no point in bringing up serious crime or national security as excuses, because the agencies responsible for those matters already have the legal authority to make such inquiries and will continue to do so. The issue here is that the FIU had no legal basis for what it did. And that raises a real accountability question. Parempoolsed have clearly stated that this is absolutely a matter of ministerial responsibility, how could such a thing even happen in this country?" she said.

Societal debate needed

Perling believes society needs to start a broad debate about who should have access to banking data.

"Accountability is important too, but not in a punitive sense. We need to restore trust, which people have lost, because they now feel that state officials are just rummaging through their bank accounts," she said.

"Debate, apology, and system reform," the former prosecutor general said, summing up as the next steps.

The state as a whole must deal with the consequences, she added.

Problems need to be address in political level

"The minister of justice is responsible for the rule of law. We know that the FIU operates under the Ministry of Finance, and the entire internal security sphere, behind which the FIU's actions are being shielded, is under the Ministry of the Interior. So this is a matter of political leadership — specifically three ministers. Of course, the FIU director must also be asked how this was even possible, but it's now up to the political level to address it," Perling said.

She said it is particularly strange that the Ministry of Justice is now saying banks were not required to automatically provide data through the enforcement register without verifying the legitimacy of the inquiries.

"When we are talking about inquiries made by government agencies to banks, we assume the state is acting lawfully. I also would not want to live in a country where, when the state makes a legitimate request for data, the bank starts asking: 'Do you have a legal basis? Do you have a statute? What exactly are you asking for?' The relationship between the state and the individual must be based on trust, and the assumption that the state and its institutions act lawfully should be a priori," Perling said.

Freedom comes first

The Parempoolsed chairman also noted that in a rule-of-law state, the correct order is that freedom comes first, and only when that freedom begins to infringe on someone else's freedom should restrictions be introduced.

"Such a restriction must be legal and proportionate. Since systems are run by people, sometimes things go wrong—and then oversight and accountability must follow. But right now, it seems the debate on this topic has gone quiet. That must be addressed immediately and substantively," said Perling.

On July 14, Minister of Justice Liisa Pakosta restricted access to the enforcement register for institutions that had not requested special permission to use it. The FIU's request was rejected.

Speaking about the FIU's role and its access to the enforcement register, Perling said that criminal matters are handled by security agencies, which already have the necessary tools.

"It's true that even for them, oversight and control must be constantly in place. But the FIU is a preventive agency, and we must take a hard look at what its actual functions are. Because it seems that whenever the words 'terrorism' or 'money laundering' are mentioned, politicians panic. But we need to look deeper. And at the moment, nothing particularly alarming is happening, and preventive powers that disproportionately infringe on people's freedoms must not be granted to the FIU," said Perling.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook, Bluesky and X and never miss an update!