Supreme Court confirms: Leedo, Rihvk and Viikmaa must serve two months in prison

The Supreme Court upheld on Friday the convictions of Vjatšeslav Leedo, Tõnis Rihvk and Lennart Viikmaa for causing the insolvency of Saaremaa Shipping Company. All three men must serve an actual two-month prison sentence. The court also quashed the civil claim, as the victim's financial claims had already been satisfied.

The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court confirmed on Friday, 20 June 2026, that Vjatšeslav Leedo, Tõnis Rihvk and Lennart Viikmaa, convicted of causing the insolvency of Saaremaa Shipping Company (SLK), must serve an actual two-month prison sentence.

Conviction becomes final

The Supreme Court left unchanged both the district court and court of appeal decisions on guilt and sentences. Rihvk and Leedo received two years and six months imprisonment and Viikmaa one year and six months, all suspended, but with the obligation to serve two months of actual imprisonment immediately after the judgment becomes final. The court of appeal had previously toughened the conditional sentence by adding this mandatory actual prison time.

The district court established that prior to the transactions described in the indictment, Saaremaa Shipping Company owned unencumbered assets worth over four million euros, with approximately 5.5 million euros in a bank account and four ferries on the balance sheet with a combined value of roughly four million euros. After the transactions, all unencumbered assets disappeared and the business became insolvent. Leedo and Rihvk were also charged with forgery related to the transactions.

Civil claim quashed

The Supreme Court also quashed earlier decisions upholding the civil claim of the victim OÜ Reyna Trade. In the Saaremaa Shipping Company bankruptcy proceedings, Reyna Trade's claims were recognised to the extent of 421,914 euros and Peetri Centre OÜ, related to Leedo, reimbursed this amount to the victim on behalf of the debtor. With respect to the remaining claim of 276,473 euros, the court found that Saaremaa Shipping Company had made corresponding transfers to the victim's tax and customs authority prepayment account and that these payments covered the existing debt, thus there was no longer any basis for satisfying the civil claim.

Question of judicial recusal

The Supreme Court also addressed in its judgment the defence claim that Judge Andres Parmas, who participated in the court of appeal, should have recused himself because he had previously served as the State Prosecutor and that role brought him into contact with the case. Parmas himself also wished to recuse himself, but the court of appeal chair rejected his request.

The Supreme Court clarified that according to law, a duty to recuse oneself exists only if the judge personally participated in the proceedings as prosecutor or substantially intervened in its course. In this case, Parmas, as State Prosecutor, did meet with the victim's representative and inquired of the prosecutor directing the proceedings about the case status, but did not provide substantive guidance. Therefore, there was no basis for requiring recusal.

Bankruptcy does not absolve responsibility

In its decision, the court of appeal had explained why the closure of Saaremaa Shipping Company bankruptcy proceedings does not provide grounds to acquit the accused. The punishability of the act does not depend on whether the consequences were subsequently eliminated or damage compensated; the fact that business entities controlled by Leedo have paid most of SLK's liabilities does not exclude his and the others' responsibility for causing insolvency. The Supreme Court agreed with this position.