The allegations of corruption involving Latvia's political and business elite have sparked significant controversy and raised questions about integrity and accountability at the highest levels. But here's where it gets controversial: the full story remains tangled with legal battles, diplomatic immunity, and unanswered questions about the extent of influence and misconduct.
Aleksandrs Brandavs, who once held indirect ownership of the passenger transport company Rīgas mikroautobusu satiksme (RMS), faced a hefty €73,000 fine this past autumn after publicly admitting to repeatedly promising bribes to a high-ranking Riga City Council official. According to the Latvian Television program De facto, this official was possibly the then mayor of Riga, Nils Ušakovs. The case paints a complex picture of alleged political corruption intertwined with business interests.
Records from the Latvian Law Enforcement Agency (LETA) indicate that in spring 2023, the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB) recommended charges against not only Ušakovs and his then-deputy, Andris Ameriks (associated with the Honor to Serve Riga party), but also several other individuals, including Brandavs. The accusations suggest that these figures caused municipal financial losses estimated at around 10 million euros. Investigators believed that Ušakovs and Ameriks demanded a lucrative bribe from Brandavs as part of their alleged scheme.
The Latvian television’s De facto revealed that prosecutor Ando Skalbe mentioned Brandavs was willing to confess to promising a bribe, but only to a single official. To streamline the legal process and secure a quicker resolution, authorities split the case, focusing on the part where Brandavs was prepared to plead guilty.
An agreement was reached between Brandavs and Prosecutor Skalbe, which was later scrutinized and approved by the Economic Affairs Court. The court's ruling officially came into force in October.
According to court documents and case materials, a key meeting took place in September 2017, involving a Riga City Council official—held responsible enough to be a potential candidate for positions like mayor, vice-mayor, or executive director under Latvian law. During this encounter, the official proposed altering regulations so that fare discounts for certain passenger groups could be extended to RMS vehicles indirectly owned by Brandavs. The intention was to boost passenger numbers, increase revenue, and, consequently, inflate profits for his company.
In exchange, the official allegedly demanded a bribe amounting to 50% of the municipal funds allocated based on passenger numbers—funds that depend on the number of discounted rides. Brandavs, aware of the financial benefit, reportedly agreed to pay a bribe, suggesting alternatives: 45% via bank transfer or 30% paid in cash. Ultimately, both parties settled on a 30% cash bribe.
The court’s judgement notes that both Brandavs and the official, given their knowledge of passenger figures, could reasonably have foreseen that the bribe would total at least 19,000 euros each month, according to De facto's report. However, it's important to emphasize that there is no concrete evidence confirming the actual payment of the bribe, only the solicitation and promise—meaning the transaction may never have been consummated. Prosecutor Skalbe explained, “We tried to find proof, but unfortunately, it was not successful. Hence, we can only discuss the solicitation and promise.”
Brandavs has chosen not to publicly comment on these allegations through his lawyer, Normunds Duļevskis. However, De facto reports that Brandavs’ testimony implicates Ušakovs, who still enjoys immunity as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP). Ušakovs previously refused to have his immunity lifted by the European Parliament during investigations but was re-elected for another term. Meanwhile, Ameriks ended his parliamentary career and recently began working as an expert at the Freeport of Riga Authority.
Prosecutor Skalbe indicated that the separate case against Ameriks might soon be brought before the court, although attempts to reach him for comment were unsuccessful. When asked about the allegations involving Ušakovs, the former mayor replied in writing that he acted strictly within the law and declined to comment further on the ongoing investigations that he claims he is unaware of. He also refused to speculate on how he might respond if the European Parliament reactivated efforts to lift his immunity, especially considering the new composition of the EP and different legal officials in charge.
The Latvian Prosecutor General, Armīns Meisters, stated that a renewed request to lift Ušakovs’ immunity is possible and argued that waiting passively for his parliamentary mandate to expire would be unwise. Currently, the proceedings involving Ušakovs are on hold, as investigations suggest he might have not only solicited a bribe but also abused his office.
Two other individuals, former Rīgas satiksme chairman Leons Bemhens and the former acting head of the Riga City Council’s Transport Department, Emīls Jakrins, have also been charged with abuse of office in connection to this case. Their cases are now before the court, with both the Rīgas satiksme company and the Riga municipality seeking damages totaling €10 million. Bemhens’ lawyer, Varis Klotiņš, refused to comment, and Bemhens himself could not be reached. Jakrins dismissed the charges as “absurd and incomprehensible,” claiming his role was merely to present a council decision he did not originate.
Prosecutor Skalbe sees wider responsibilities for both defendants, alleging that they used their authority improperly to instruct subordinates to prepare and promote amendments favorable to Brandavs’ company. Looking ahead, he also plans to bring a case before the court early next year to impose coercive measures against RMS, which is currently in insolvency proceedings, in connection with the bribe promise.
Aside from these developments, LETA archives indicate that Brandavs faces charges in several other criminal investigations, signifying the extent of legal scrutiny surrounding his activities.
Is this a sign of systemic corruption at the top, or are these isolated incidents? How much influence do political figures truly wield over business dealings in Latvia? Share your thoughts and join the debate!
