A person is sentenced to six years in prison for keeping antiquities that belong to the state

On April 25, the Department of Criminal Affairs of the Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings, and in the case of illegal storage of antiquities belonging to the state, a conviction comes into force, by which a person has been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, with a suspended sentence. Antiquities, which have been handed over to the Latvian National History Museum as physical evidence, have been left to the state. Items that are not antiques returned to the convicted person.

It follows from the law “On the Protection of Cultural Monuments” that antiquities are objects created as a result of conscious human activity – artefacts (for example, jewelry, weapons, tools, household items, ceramics, coins in whole or fragmentary form), found in the ground, above the ground or in water.

Various items were found and seized at the accused’s residence, including coins, bracelets, rings, necklaces, brooches, charms, broad-bladed axes, as well as an ear cleaning spoon. In the assessment of the regional court, the evidence obtained in the case confirms that the items seized from the defendant are antiquities belonging to the Latvian state, and the defendant kept them illegally. The regional court concluded that neither during the pre-trial proceedings nor during the court investigation, the accused did not submit evidence of the legal origin of the antiquities. After evaluating the defendant’s testimony about the circumstances of the purchase of antiques, the regional court found them contradictory and found that the defendant not only did not provide information about specific sellers of antiques, but also provided contradictory information about the origin of the antiques and the places where they were purchased.

Refusing to initiate cassation proceedings, the Senate recognized that the arguments stated in the defendant’s cassation complaint were based on his different opinion on the factual circumstances of the incriminated criminal offense and the evaluation of the evidence obtained in the case, and were aimed at achieving the annulment of the district court’s judgment not for legal, but for factual reasons, which is against the law.