Supreme Court upholds convictions of Saaremaa Laevakompanii leaders

The Supreme Court of Estonia today upheld the convictions of Tõnis Rihvk, Vjatšeslav Leedo and Lennart Viikmaa for causing the insolvency of Saaremaa Laevakompanii. The sentences for all three men remained unchanged, but the satisfaction of the civil claim was annulled because the claimant's financial demands had already been met.

The Supreme Court made a final decision on Thursday, 19 June 2026 in the Saaremaa Laevakompanii criminal case, upholding both the convictions of the three defendants and the sentences imposed on them. The defendants Vjatšeslav Leedo, Tõnis Rihvk and Lennart Viikmaa were finally found guilty of deliberately causing the insolvency of a business entity. Leedo and Rihvk also faced forgery charges.

How the shipping company was driven to bankruptcy

According to the findings of the court of first instance, Saaremaa Laevakompanii owned unencumbered assets worth over four million euros before the transactions described in the indictment. The company's bank account held approximately 5.5 million euros and the balance sheet listed four ferries with a total value of approximately four million euros. After the transactions were completed, the company no longer had sufficient assets to cover its obligations and the business entity became insolvent.

The court of first instance sentenced Rihvk and Leedo to two years and six months of conditional imprisonment with a probation period of four years. Viikmaa received a conditional sentence of one year and six months with a probation period of three years. The court of appeal tightened the ruling and ordered the defendants to serve two months in actual imprisonment immediately upon the judgment becoming enforceable.

Civil claim annulled

The Supreme Court annulled the satisfaction of the civil claim brought by the claimant OÜ Reyna Trade. In the bankruptcy proceedings, Reyna Trade's claims were recognised in the amount of 421,914 euros and OÜ Peetri Keskus, associated with Leedo, had already compensated the claimant for this sum. With regard to the remaining claim of 276,473 euros, the claimant both turned to the civil courts and filed a parallel civil claim in the criminal case.

The Supreme Court concluded that the transfers made by Saaremaa Laevakompanii to the claimant's Tax and Customs Board advance account covered the debt owed by it, which means that the claimant's financial claims are considered fulfilled and there is no basis for separate civil proceedings.

Question of judge Parmas's recusal

The Supreme Court also addressed in its judgment the defence's argument that judge Andres Parmas, who ruled on the case in the court of appeal, should have recused himself because he came into contact with the matter while working as state prosecutor. Parmas had sought to recuse himself, but the presiding judge of the court of appeal did not allow it.

The Supreme Court explained that according to the law, a judge who has previously acted as a prosecutor must recuse himself only if he has personally participated in or substantially interfered with the proceedings as a prosecutor in the case. In Parmas's case, these conditions were not met. Although he met with the claimant's representative in his capacity as state prosecutor and inquired about the progress of the case from the prosecutor leading the proceedings, he did not give substantive instructions on how to resolve the case. The Supreme Court found that the rejection of the recusal request was therefore lawful.