Hardijs Vents, former chairman of the Pārgauja Municipal Council and member of the Latvian Farmers’ Union, has received an increased sentence for abuse of office. The decision follows an appeal filed by the Vidzeme District Court prosecutor regarding the initial sentencing.
Sentence Increased for Former Municipal Chairman
The Vidzeme Regional Court determined that the original sentence – a suspended deprivation of liberty – was insufficient. Vents has now been ordered to pay a fine of €23,400, equivalent to 30 times the minimum monthly wage. He has also been barred from holding public office in state and local government institutions for a period of three years.
The prosecutor argued that the initial sentencing was not fair and requested a fine as an alternative punishment. The prosecutor’s appeal noted that the offense did not involve violence and that the goals of punishment could be met without imprisonment.
The case centers around loan agreements Vents made with the local government in 2014 and 2017 regarding the use of a personal vehicle. These agreements specifically prohibited the use of municipal funds for vehicle repairs, tire replacement, washing, or the purchase of fluids. Despite these restrictions, Vents authorized repairs and maintenance, and purchased parts and fluids for multiple vehicles.
Vents then submitted receipts for these services to the local government, personally signing off on them. This resulted in financial losses of EUR 12,770.67 for the local government, an amount legally defined as significant damage.
The judgment is not yet final. Parties involved have ten days from the availability of the full judgment to file an appeal in cassation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the original sentence imposed on Hardijs Vents?
The original sentence imposed by the Vidzeme District Court was a suspended sentence of imprisonment with a one-year probation period.
What specific actions led to the charges against Vents?
Vents authorized repairs and maintenance, and purchased car parts and fluids for vehicles using municipal funds despite loan agreements prohibiting such use. He then submitted the receipts for reimbursement.
Is the current judgment final?
No, the judgment has not yet entered into force. The parties involved may appeal it in cassation within ten days of the full judgment becoming available.
How might this case influence future oversight of municipal spending and the conduct of public officials?
