Attorneys-at-law Aivar Pilv and Jaak Siim have reached defendant’s partial acquittal in tax criminal case
Tallinn circuit court partially satisfied appeal complaint of attorneys-at-law Aivar Pilv and Jaak Siim with its judgement as of 9 January 2017, as well as partially annulled court sentence Harju county as of 13 June 2016. Also the defendant was justified in prosecuting based on Article 389 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides accusation in avoiding presenting financial data to the Tax Department with the purpose to hold back from tax obligations and decrease them, and by this causing a huge damage.
According to accusation, H.K, as a board member of X OÜ, didn’t declare income and social taxes in April of 2011, that were payable from special benefits in total amount of 129 107 and 202 883 euros respectively. According to accusation, this amount had to be paid as above mentioned company has acquired property for H.K’s residential purpose, that is to say transferred property to the latter for free.
According to defence attorneys’ estimations, court decision is important in the sense of surveillance proceedings, as well as in the sense of reasonable foundation for related companies’ data claim and valuation of claim reasoning. Also court decision is of essential meaning concerning regulations of prices for special benefits.
Circuit court agreed with defenders’ position while assessing the evidence and thus left behind the evidence based on permit for prosecution and procedural acts by county court and prosecutors. This is due to the reason that in the process of needed permits provision there were not complied common rules, which are prescribed by law as well as by practice of Supreme Court.
The court has agreed with the position of defence attorneys that there was not enough evidence, that X OÜ had acquired the property for H.K residential purpose producing by this special benefit in April of 2011, and as a result transferred property for free without paying income and social taxes. The court concluded that it was not sufficiently reasoned that company had produced the special benefit to the board member within such amount that the case could be processed in accordance with the Article 389 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So the defendant was justified in regards with this part.