A government-initiated bill to amend the Anti-Corruption Act, in force since 2013, was scheduled for its third reading in the Riigikogu on Wednesday.

The most notable change was that a violation of procedural restrictions would no longer be considered a criminal offense unless it involved at least €40,000 in damage or benefit.

Justice and Digital Affairs Minister Liisa Pakosta (Eesti 200) announced unexpectedly on Tuesday evening that she would withdraw the bill from parliamentary proceedings. The initiator of a bill — in this case, the government — has the right to do so.

"This is not the first time a bill has been withdrawn in government practice, nor will it be the last. The day after tomorrow, on Thursday, I will bring the bill back to the government, now without the disputed provision concerning violations of procedural restrictions in the Penal Code," Pakosta said.

Pakosta was referring to an amendment she herself had introduced to the bill, under which an official could face criminal punishment for knowingly violating procedural restrictions only if the violation caused significant damage or resulted in substantial financial gain. The threshold for significant damage would start at €40,000. If the damage were smaller or could not be determined, the act would be treated as a misdemeanor.

Law enforcement: Police could not carry out surveillance

Eesti Ekspress published an article online Tuesday evening titled "Guaranteed profit! A new law would make corruption a lucrative venture," reporting that a law just steps away from entering into force would make corruption financially beneficial for officials.

Representatives of law enforcement agencies were critical of the amendment in the article. For example, Internal Security Service (ISS) spokesperson Marta Tuul told the newspaper that if violations of procedural restrictions must be handled as misdemeanors, police would not be able to carry out surveillance activities. She said this is a major problem.

"To initiate criminal proceedings, something would already have to indicate damage or benefit of €40,000. In practice, such situations where initial information points to that are rare," the ISS representative said. "In a situation where such information is lacking, suspicions would have to be resolved through misdemeanor proceedings."

Aivar Sepp, head of the Central Criminal Police's corruption crimes bureau, published an opinion piece on ERR's portal on Tuesday titled "Weakening procedural restrictions is the wrong step," in which he wrote that setting a €40,000 threshold would be a step backward.

"The €40,000 threshold is too high compared with other crimes. For example, in property offenses, a crime begins at €200. Under the new logic, an official could enter into transactions with themselves worth tens of thousands of euros, yet it would only be a misdemeanor," Sepp said. "Although such cases can also be investigated as misdemeanors, a fine will not deter someone with bad intentions if they stand to earn many times more."

MP: Many Estonians seem to yearn for an iron fist

Riigikogu Constitutional Committee chair Ando Kiviberg (Eesti 200) reacted sharply, particularly to the Eesti Ekspress article and the statements made by representatives of the security authorities. He noted that the Constitutional Committee has discussed amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act for nearly two years and that all proposals submitted to the full chamber had received unanimous support from committee members.

"Today I read in media coverage that we have instead sought to make life easier for corrupt officials. That corruption would become worthwhile. It has been quite a repulsive read. These accusations have been raised by representatives of our investigative authorities. Some diligent journalists have come to believe these claims and, driven by that belief, have launched attacks," Kiviberg wrote.

The Eesti 200 politician added that the committee he leads had jointly concluded that it is time for Estonia to align its legal order and penal rules with those of developed societies.

"We found that it is not appropriate for a free society in a free state to imprison a person for an act that has caused no harm to anyone and from which no one has gained unlawful benefit. From the reaction of representatives of the police and the Prosecutor's Office, I understand that they are more comfortable preserving a Soviet-era style of legal culture — one in which people are first put in handcuffs and thrown in jail and only afterward are the facts examined," Kiviberg wrote, adding that he does not intend to yield to such pressure.

What happens next?

Pakosta noted that she had already initiated a review of the Anti-Corruption Act in February of this year. As part of that process, she said, the issues surrounding violations of procedural restrictions can be calmly revisited, along with a broader assessment of the thresholds for both criminal offenses and misdemeanors.

"The review working group also includes representatives of law enforcement agencies and the courts. Together, we are considering the impact of the amendment from the perspectives of legal clarity, proportionality and practical implementation. This will also allow us to hold the important public debate initiated by the opposition in a calm and well-argued manner. As the saying goes, it is not only about how things are, but also how they appear."

Pakosta said she is confident that, under the leadership of the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee, the most essential measures for preventing corruption will be completed before the summer. By the end of the year, she added, the review working group will agree on a roadmap for further amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act.

--

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