Rietumu Banka, АО

History

2021

Fine 5.85 million euros for legalization and laundering of funds obtained by criminal means

In June 2021, the Finance and Capital Market Commission  applied a fine of 5.85 million euros to Rietumu banka for violations of the laws of legalization and laundering of funds obtained by criminal means.

Fine of 20 million euros for helping companies in tax evasion

In mid-April 2021, the Latvian lender Rietumu Banka will pay tens of millions to help companies evade taxes. The French Court of Appeal found the Latvian Rietumu Banka guilty of money laundering, but reduced the fine from 80 million euros - a record European fine awarded to the bank in 2017 - to 20 million.

According to law enforcement, Rietumu helped clients of the consulting firm France Offshore evade taxes for several years. The Paris Court of First Instance sentenced the case in 2017, but Rietumu Bank and its former director Pankov tried to challenge this decision. Other defendants, including the former head of France Offshore, Nadav Bensusan, sentenced to five years in prison, did not challenge the court's decision.

Rietumu Banka, a Latvian bank, will pay tens of millions to help companies evade taxes

The Court of Appeal of Paris confirmed that Rietumu Banka played an important role in this fraudulent scheme, which operated from 2008 to 2012, but the judges did not substantiate their decision to reduce the fine. Judge Francois Reygrobellet said a written decision would be sent to interested parties later.

The Paris prosecutor's office asked the court of appeal to fine the bank 60 million euros, and its former president Alexander Pankov to be sentenced to 2 years probation and a fine of 50,000 euros. The court of first instance sentenced him to four years probation. The Court of Appeal agreed to reduce the prison sentence of the former director to two years, but fined him 150,000 euros. The bank is forbidden to work in France for five years.

A spokesman for Rietumu Banka noted that the court of appeal took into account the bank's arguments and largely revised the decision of the court of first instance in favor of the bank.^[1]

Notes