Jaak Siim achieved to end criminal proceedings against his client
Partner Jaak Siim achieved to end criminal proceedings against his client who was suspected for bribery. Jaak Siim defended his client in a criminal case including numerous people in criminal proceedings started by the Estonian Internal Security Service and Viru District Prosecutor’s Office.
The suspicion presented to the client was that while being an owner surveillance representative in many road construction projects made in Ida-Virumaa he allegedly asked for a bribe from the executive director of the contractor. Asking for a bribe was that the client approached the executive director of the contractor with a request to get a discount offer from the contractor for a new vehicle and in return from his side an overall forthcoming while doing owner surveillances to the employer, giving an approval on done work and not responding immediately on possible mistakes.
Suspicion that was filed against the client for bribery was mainly based on the content of the phone calls between the client and contractor’s executive director what whereas were recorded during surveillance activities. Jaak Siim contested the Viru County Court order made by the preliminary investigation judge in Tartu Circuit Court with what permission was given for the abovementioned surveillance activity. Circuit Court granted defender Jaak Siim’s appeal and annulled county judge’s order with what they agreed with the defender in a way that the order which was appealed did not in no way meet the requirements which were necessary for an order to give such permission for such kind of a surveillance activity. According to law information what has been obtained under surveillance activities is evidence only when filing for a permission for surveillance activities and granting it follows the requirements of law and with that the unlawfulness of the surveillance activities as determined by the circuit court automatically resulted in the unlawfulness of the surveillance activities carried out on the basis thereof. Therefore, the collected evidence (phone call recordings) that were gathered under surveillance activities to incriminate the client were not usable anymore.
Later, after circuit courts abovementioned order district prosecutor’s office terminated the criminal proceeding in relations to Jaak Siim’s defendant in the absence of legal basis and attributed in favour of the latter a compensation by the state for the attorney fee’s the client had to pay during the proceedings.