A year ago, the United States allocated $50 million to Estonia from the fine imposed on Danske Bank for money laundering. Under the agreement, Estonia is to use the funds to strengthen efforts to combat or prevent financial crime.

The Ministry of Justice plans to spend €1.2 million of that fine over the next four years to improve anti-corruption measures in Estonia.

Justice Minister Liisa Pakosta said Estonian society and the economy have changed so significantly in recent years that the entire Anti-Corruption Act should be reviewed comprehensively.

She gave an example: "Back when I was a member of the Riigikogu, I raised the issue that Estonia has joined the international convention on tobacco control. One of its provisions states that, since the tobacco industry — now more accurately the nicotine industry — spends unprecedented amounts of money trying to influence officials, all public servants involved in policymaking who meet with tobacco lobbyists must disclose those meetings publicly. By joining the international convention, we've taken on that obligation, yet today we have no such requirement for officials."

The minister added that current legislation does not guarantee that a money laundering case like that of Danske Bank could not happen again in Estonia. She noted that corruption prevention measures in financial institutions remain inadequate.

"The Danske Bank money laundering case is perhaps the clearest proof that things can be done better. Are corruption risks in the financial sector being properly mitigated and does the law provide banks with the right tools? The banks themselves are interested in ensuring such incidents don't happen and that risks are identified early. When it comes to the private sector and financial institutions, we must ask whether the tools for prevention are sufficient today," she said.

The Ministry of Justice has now convened a working group. According to Pakosta, by the end of the year, the ministry plans to complete a concept paper that maps out all the issues related to the Anti-Corruption Act and proposes initial solutions.

Riigikogu to continue processing anti-corruption amendments

In parallel with the broader review of the Anti-Corruption Act, amendments to the current law are also moving forward in the Riigikogu. Since spring, lawmakers have been debating how to precisely define which individuals or companies, when involved in decisions or actions, would reasonably give rise to concerns about an official's impartiality, requiring that official to recuse themselves. This specific provision was also scrutinized in the recent court case involving Tartu Deputy Mayor Priit Humal.

Constitutional Committee Chair Ando Kiviberg said progress has now been made on clarifying the language of the clause.

"The Ministry of Justice has revised its proposals and we reviewed them again. Committee members liked the solution on offer — it's much better and clearer," Kiviberg said.

Doctors to be released from fear of corruption by summer

Kiviberg said the Constitutional Committee wants the proposed amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act, which passed its first reading in the Riigikogu last spring, to be finalized and adopted before the summer recess.

Among other changes, the draft law addresses situations that currently could be considered corruption, such as when a doctor prescribes medication to a close family member.

As it stands, the law can be interpreted to mean that a doctor who writes a prescription for a relative is violating the Anti-Corruption Act because they are taking official action involving someone they are personally connected to.

Under the draft law being considered in the Riigikogu, that would change. "Simply put: if a doctor prescribes medication for their child over the weekend, they're not a corrupt official," said Pakosta.

ERR reported a few years ago that the Office of the Prosecutor General had previously criticized giving doctors more leeway in treating close relatives, warning that it could still increase the risk of corruption.

Kiviberg: Corruption restrictions should not be applied to lawyers

A similar issue currently exists in the academic world. Kiviberg explained that if a researcher wants to commercialize an invention resulting from their academic work through a company outside the university, they could find themselves under suspicion of corruption due to a potential conflict of interest.

Kiviberg said this acts as a brake on Estonia's economy. "It's a fairly absurd situation. The invention might be something society needs and that could benefit Estonia's economy, but because of the corruption risk, the researcher isn't allowed to develop the product for fear of being accused of a conflict of interest and ending up in handcuffs."

The Constitutional Committee chair said that the restrictions placed on public officials should not automatically extend to professions that, by nature, do not exercise public authority, such as scientists or lawyers.

"Lawyers are concerned that when they provide services to public institutions — for example, in legal disputes or procurement processes — they're treated as public officials, even though they're not. It's as if a lawyer giving advice could improperly influence a public body's decision. And if that law firm has another contract with the same large company, the lawyer could end up facing corruption charges. These are neither appropriate nor fair outcomes and we must absolutely revisit these issues," he said.

--

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