At the same time, the court overturned the civil claim because the victim's financial demands had already been met.

Tõnis Rihvk, a management board member of Saaremaa Shipping Company (SLK), and supervisory board members Vjatšeslav Leedo and Lennart Viikmaa were accused of causing the company's insolvency. Leedo and Rihvk were also charged with forgery related to the case.

The District Court found the defendants guilty. The court established that before the transactions described in the indictment, Saaremaa Shipping Company owned more than €4 million in unencumbered assets, had nearly €5.5 million in its bank account and held four ferries valued at nearly €4 million on its balance sheet.

After the transactions, the company no longer had unencumbered assets and became insolvent.

The District Court sentenced Rihvk and Leedo to two years and six months in prison, suspended with a four‑year probation period. Viikmaa received a suspended sentence of one year and six months with a three‑year probation period. The Circuit Court increased the penalties and ruled that the defendants must serve two months of actual imprisonment once the decision takes effect.

The Circuit Court explained why the recent closure of Saaremaa Shipping Company's bankruptcy proceedings does not justify acquitting the defendants. The criminal liability does not depend on whether the consequences of the act were later remedied or the damage compensated. Therefore, the defendants remain responsible for causing insolvency even though companies controlled by Leedo have since paid most of Saaremaa Shipping Company's debts.

Leedo plans to turn to the European Court of Human Rights

Leedo said via a PR agency that he does not agree with the court ruling and intends to appeal it to the European Court of Human Rights.

"I respect the Estonian court system, but I will continue defending my rights within the framework of existing law at the European level. I consider the decision unfair, the entire process legally questionable and the punishment disproportionate," Leedo said.

Leedo said a fundamental question remains in this case: whether the alleged damage and its extent were assessed from the start in line with the actual circumstances, and whether the proceedings maintained the necessary impartiality toward all parties.

Victim's claims have been settled

The Supreme Court's criminal chamber left the lower courts' decisions on guilt and sentencing unchanged. However, it annulled earlier rulings that had granted the civil claim of OÜ Reyna Trade and ordered the defendants to cover related legal costs.

In the bankruptcy proceedings of Saaremaa Shipping Company, Reyna Trade's claims were recognized in the amount of €421,914, and Peetri Keskus OÜ, a company linked to Leedo, paid that sum on behalf of the debtor. To recover the remaining €276,473 and interest, the victim turned to civil court and also filed a civil claim in the criminal case.

Saaremaa Shipping Company had made payments of that amount to the victim's Tax and Customs Board prepayment account. The parties disagreed on whether those payments were intended to cover the debt. The civil courts found that the company's debt to Reyna Trade had been settled through those transfers, and the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion when resolving the civil claim in the criminal case.

The Supreme Court also addressed the defense's argument that Judge Andres Parmas, who participated in the circuit court's handling of the case, should have been recused because he had previously encountered the matter while serving as Prosecutor General. Parmas himself requested recusal, but the Circuit Court president rejected the request.

The Supreme Court explained that a judge who previously worked as a prosecutor must be recused only if they participated in the proceedings of the specific case or intervened in its course — for example, by canceling a prosecutor's order or directive. In this case, no such circumstances existed. Parmas had met with the victim's representative as Prosecutor General and had asked the prosecutor handling the case about its progress as part of supervisory duties, but he did not give substantive instructions on how the case should be resolved.

--

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