The prosecutor’s office has filed charges against SIA Tet Juris Gulbis, Chairman of the Board, and four other persons for possible participation in fraud in the introduction of digital television, estimating the damage caused to the company in the amount of 7,585,533 euros, TV3 broadcasts Than personal.
The ombudsmen believe that Kempmayer successor company Hannu Digital was involved in the digital television project artificially and used by Gulbis Lattelecom (now – Tet) and the confidence of the board.
As reported by the company Tet, Swan does not agree with the accusation. “I categorically and completely reject the allegations made. We are ready to defend and justify every decision made by the company. Our priority has always been the development of the company only in a legal way, “said Gulbis.
Gulbis has not been suspended, but the company’s council has hired forensic experts to investigate the crimes committed against Gulbis and other employees by the end of the year.
According to the program, the transition to digital television was planned 20 years ago, when the prime minister was Andris Skele. Investigators believe it was intended as an unfair profit project. The key company of the project became the one registered in London Kempmayer Media Limited, which turned out to be a mailbox company with offshore hidden owners. According to the program, the affair was opened in 2003 and 20 people sat on the bench of the accused, including Harry Krongorn, the accountant of the Šķēle family business. The case has already been tried in two court instances and a judgment of the Supreme Court is expected at the end of this month.
To, ka Kempmayer was set up as a shell to achieve one goal, was also recognized by the Stockholm International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration and ordered the country to pay more than 5 million euros. They were paid for by the money lent by Šķēle by Andrejs Ēķis, who was Kempmayer organizer of shareholders.
The program emphasizes that this is the beginning of what the prosecutor considers to be the second affair of the digital television project. Kempmayer had managed to spend the money on digital television equipment, which had been in customs warehouses in Latvia since 2003, but was later installed in a test mode in the Zaķusala tower. Kempmayer The transmitters and the head station, together with the debt to Šķēle, were bought by a company led by Gintars Kavačs. According to a program to recoup millions spent on Slice and bring revenue to old broadcasters, Kavach’s company Hannu Digital had to become a digital television implementer or partner, so in 2008 cooperation was achieved with Lattelecom, which was also led by Gulbis at that time.
Lattelecom won the tender organized by the Ministry of Transport for the introduction of digital television together with a subcontractor Hannu Digital.
The transaction was questioned in 2009 by the State Audit Office, which emphasized that the tender was specially organized in such a way that it would not be possible to do without the specific commercial company.
Although the technical infrastructure was within the competence of the Latvian State Radio and Television Center and it was ready for the transition to digital television throughout Latvia, the regulations required that the winner provide immediate broadcasting in Riga and its surroundings, but the only one who could do so was Hannu Digital.
The report of the State Audit Office reached KNAB. In 2010, criminal proceedings were initiated, in which not only the legality of the tender itself was assessed, but also the validity of the contracts concluded later. With the change of three investigators, the case has been without progress until this summer, but in August the prosecutor’s office filed the first charges.
The investigation revealed that Lattelecom had planned Hannu Digital to pay EUR 15 million in ten years, but this amount has been exceeded several times Hannu Digital the value of the equipment owned. The value of the transmitters was already covered by the first payment, but several other items were hidden in the contract in order to Hannu Digital receive as much funding as possible from Lattelecom. Payments are masked under various items, for example, less than 2 million euros Lattelecom transferred to a commercial company for know-how.
“We do it for him know-how evaluated. (…) It was none know-how. (…) All the documents they submitted did not correspond in any way here know-how. Basically it’s about empty air. The contract simply described such a position (in our view, it was such a scam) that they had the knowledge for which they were entitled to such sums. But in fact it was paid because there was such an agreement, “the prosecutor Monvīds Zelčs described the accusation.
The agreement also envisages that in 2010 the next eight years Hannu Digital will receive 22% of Lattelecom revenues generated by providing digital broadcasting throughout Latvia, although Hannu Digital broadcasting outside the Riga region was not planned at all. According to the prosecutor’s office, such an agreement was concluded in an abusive manner Lattelecom the confidence of the members and the board that, contrary to the interests of the Hannu Digital obtain the greatest possible financial resources.
The prosecutor’s office investigated that all planned 15 million euros Hannu Digital however, it was not possible to receive it, because in 2014 there was a new tender and LVRTC further provided broadcasting in the Riga region, but in a few years the amount of losses caused Lattelecom, according to the prosecutor’s office, has reached 7,585,533 euros.
The prosecutor noted that Swan as Lattelecom the manager was involved in the transaction negotiations, was aware of the negotiations conducted by his other subordinates and was informed of the progress of the whole project, respectively “his role was important”.
The swan has been charged with involvement in large-scale fraud.
Gulbi has also been charged with complicity in the fraud Lattelecom Jānis Ligers, then commercial director, Toms Ābele, Head of Business Department, Toms Meisītis and Kavacis, Head of Business Support Department. Hannu Digital In 2010, Kavacis was reorganized and, according to the program, no longer staying in Latvia. Of the above Tet Meisitis, Director of the Legal Department, and Gulbis, Chairman of the Board, are still working.
Tet the council has decided not to rush in an extraordinary meeting, but has transferred the accusation of the prosecutor’s office to an international forensic firm selected in the competition for examination.
Tet The chairman of the council Gatis Kokins informed that the council had an opportunity to get acquainted with the accusation. “We are not judges and we do not want to play such a role as a judge. Namely, to decide whether what is written there is true or not. As we know from similar other cases that there is enough time before the court and the final judgment, it was clear that this decision should be taken sooner. And then we had a discussion about choosing an auditor or a legal entity, but the prevailing view was that we needed forensic experts. There are a number of well-known large forensic companies in the world, one of which we chose. On December 1 of this year, we look forward to the results, »Kokins informed.
According to Kokin, if the expert opinion testifies to criminal intentions, goals and actions, “then undoubtedly our decision will be very categorical and rapid”, but until then, the council will not remove Gulbi from office.
Shortly after the story Tet issued a statement to the mass media confirming that the criminal proceedings initiated in 2010 have now also been prosecuted Tet Chairman of the Board and Director of the Legal Department.
As emphasized in the company statement, Tet “The shareholders, the council and the board take the situation extremely seriously and take all necessary steps to clarify the circumstances of the case”, however, “until all the circumstances of the case are fully clarified, both officials of the company .
Kokins stressed in a statement issued by the company that Tet the board and shareholders have been informed of the situation since the allegations were made, and so far there has been no reason to doubt Tet the legality of the actions of the board and management team and compliance with the interests of the company and its owners.
“At the same time, the council has commissioned an independent study, currently being carried out by a specialized international company with a high reputation in the field. Until then, the company’s management and staff maintain the council’s trust to ensure this stressful time Tet the successful operation of the group companies and its continuity, »Kokins informed.
Tet emphasizes that the allegation was made in connection with a tender for the introduction of digital terrestrial television programs 12 years ago. «According to the results of the competition organized by the Ministry of Transport in 2008, the Cabinet of Ministers approved SIA at the beginning of 2009 Lattelecom on the introduction of digital broadcasting of television programs in Latvia. Lattelecom successfully fulfilled the obligations set by the state, already in the spring of 2009 starting to provide the service in Riga and Pieriga. At a record speed until the summer of 2010, the company, having successfully completed the transition to digital television, provided both free-to-air broadcasting and a modern pay-TV service throughout the country without state financial support, as well as provided public information activities. owners, including the Republic of Latvia, by providing a profitable service, making a profit and increasing the value of companies. The project was concluded at the end of 2013, providing the company with digital broadcasting in the following period through a tender, »violations of this project are denied Tet.
“Surprisingly, more than a decade later, such allegations have been made, given that so far none of the company’s officials or employees have been assigned the status of a suspect or accused and the company has provided the investigating authorities with all the requested information,” Tet statement.
The prosecutor’s office has asked Tet assess whether it agrees to be a victim in this criminal case. In a partly state-owned company, this is decided by a board without a Swan.
–
