MfD: Klaus halts prosecution of frauds he is co-responsible for

Prague, Jan 4 (CTK) - The amnesty declared by Czech President Vaclav Klaus is a full stop he made behind the era of huge frauds of the 1990s that he, in his capacity as PM, enabled by refusing a tough supervision of banks and playing down the problem of dirty money, Hana Marvanova writes in Mlada fronta Dnes.

When Klaus announced the amnesty, as if by the way at the close of his New Year speech, he did not explain any reasons or aims of the step, Marvanova, a lawyer and former lawmaker, writes in the daily.

Klaus did not say why he has decided to pardon not only negligent but also serious intentional crimes and why he has even halted the ongoing prosecution of those suspected of frauds worth billions of crowns, even in the cases in which verdict was expected soon, Marvanova writes.

Klaus has withheld the reasons which can therefore be only speculated about, she says.

Nevertheless, Klaus unwittingly disclosed the reasons when appointing Jaroslav Bures the new head of the High Court in Prague on Wednesday. He said now [with Bures at the court's helm] he believes that everything will be in order at the High Court and that from now on the court will be judging so correctly that no more amnesties will be needed, Marvanova says.

In Hospodarske noviny, commentator Petr Kambersky recalls that Bures is a judge whom Klaus unsuccessfully tried to have installed as Supreme Court chairman several years ago and that the fresh appointment of Bures as High Court chairman smoothly complements Klaus's amnesty decision.

The High Court deals with all appeals against Czech regional courts' verdicts, including those of the City Court in Prague where almost all big companies and offices have their seats. Klaus's statement that he expects the High Court under Bures to [finally] start judging correctly sounds as a counter-revolution in the judicial area [after a recent revival], Kambersky writes.

Marvanova, in her article, says that Klaus's amnesty pardons the perpetrators of crimes such as fraud, bribe giving and taking, machinations in public procurement, insider trading, tax evasion, harming of a creditor, breach of trust, money laundering and embezzlement.

It is a demoralising message Klaus sent to people, saying that corruption and fraud are not so serious crimes and their perpetrators can be let go unpunished, Marvanova writes.

The biggest "foul" is Klaus's decision to halt the prosecution in the case of crimes punishable with up to ten years if it has lasted more than eight years. This amnesty may involve the most serious fraud, corruption and large-scale thefts, Marvanova says.

For the first time in his capacity as president, Klaus has cited the European Court of Human Rights, according to which excessively long criminal prosecution violates the suspect's right to just court proceedings, Marvanova writes.

Klaus, however, misleads the public, as no such verdict of the European Court of Human Rights exists. It is important who is to blame for the protraction of proceedings. Most often it is mainly the suspects who are at fault, using all means of obstruction such as challenging the judge as biased, excusing oneself for health reasons etc, Marvanova writes.

By his amnesty, Klaus has rewarded those who managed to obstruct the court proceedings for long enough, he adds.

In the Czech Republic, there is also another reason why some criminal proceedings have lasted very long. Big corruption cases, often involving billions of crowns worth of damage, have also been dragging on because at the beginning there was no will to prosecute these crimes and because they involve influential people with political connections, Marvanova points out.

That is why the cases of banks and credit unions from which assets were illegally siphoned off appeared before courts only belatedly, she says.

In the era of Vaclav Klaus's governments (1992-97) the state showed no interest in investigating these crimes. After several years, when the cases finally ended before court, the proceedings could hardly be short as they involve up to thousands of harmed people who must be heard, and the gathering of evidence is more difficult as well, Marvanova writes.

From this point of view, Klaus's amnesty is a full stop he has made behind the era when he saw no reason for the state to supervise banks and investment funds and said he does not distinguish dirty money, Marvanova says.

Klaus, who is responsible for the then crimes, has now decided to halt their prosecution that would clear-up the then frauds and thefts. This means not only a general pardon for those who caused a huge damage but it also prevents the harmed people from seeking compensation for the damage, Marvanova writes.

In his "broad" amnesty, the president did not take the harmed people's right to just proceedings in consideration at all, she adds.

Klaus is calling for reconciliation and forgiveness, but they must be preceded by satisfaction for those harmed. The fresh amnesty only means a full stop behind the past frauds which Klaus never considered worth investigating, Marvanova concludes.