Attorney-at-Law Anneli Aab successfully represented a client in a corruption dispute
Attorney-at-Law Anneli Aab successfully represented a client in a corruption dispute in county court as well as circuit court. The head of the police department was accused of corrupt use for personal gain – the accused abuse was carpooling together with his employee, who was allowed to park an official vehicle at home, on the route from home to work and vice versa. In the misdemeanour case Viru County court found that the act in question did not contain the elements of a misdemeanour and dismissed the proceedings. Similarly stated Tartu Circuit Court and denied the appeal. The courts reached a common position that PBGB* interpreted the corrupt use of influence according to Anti-corruption Act too broadly and emphasized that the corrupt use of influence according to the Anti-corruption act cannot automatically lead to cases where employer and employee travel to work with the same vehicle – every employer request cannot automatically mean one’s corrupt use of influence. The corrupt use of influence must be thoroughly identified.
*Police and Border Guard Board