"for a breach of duties by the manager … which resulted in … leaving clients' interests unprotected or endangering them, — shall be punished by a fine of up to EUR 5,000,000 or up to twice the profit gained or damage avoided as a result of the misdemeanour" (§ 111 of the Payment Institutions and E-Money Institutions Act).
"where a precept is not complied with, apply other … measures, including: 1) revoke the activity licence of a payment institution or e-money institution … 3) demand … the court's recall of the manager" (same Act).
In the case of payment fraud, the decision on whether to release payments becomes a legal decision of the bank, rather than the mechanical execution of a payment order that remains at the client's sole discretion. The purpose of the amendments adopted by the Riigikogu is to prevent, detect and stop financial fraud, because at present banks have no legal basis for halting a payment. Where a bank hereafter delays or halts a payment on suspicion of fraud, this immediately raises the legal question of the payment service provider's liability for failing to execute a payment order and of the limits that supervision will place on that competence. The basis for resolving this is the Payment Institutions and E-Money Institutions Act, whose scope of regulation covers the provision of payment services, the activities and liability of payment institutions, and supervision over them (§ 1), and which applies to all persons providing payment services in Estonia (§ 2). The supervisory feedback is likewise based on the same Act: the Financial Supervision Authority may issue requirements and, where a precept is not complied with, apply other measures, including revoking an activity licence or demanding the court's recall of a manager. The market thus faces a situation in which the competence to stop fraud and the resulting liability expand simultaneously — the latter is demonstrated by the Act's misdemeanour provisions providing for fines of up to EUR 5,000,000.
The bank's right to delay a payment also entails an obligation to act with sufficient prudence and competence, having regard to the interests of both the institution and its clients. The Act requires, inter alia, that a payment institution adopt internal rules governing employees' duties, reporting lines, the segregation of functions in assuming obligations, in reflecting them in reporting and in assessing risks, as well as the security of information technology systems and the functioning of internal control. If a bank neglects this control and clients' interests are left unprotected, under § 111 of the Payment Institutions and E-Money Institutions Act the manager is punishable by a fine of up to EUR 5,000,000 or up to twice the profit gained or damage avoided as a result of the misdemeanour; in the case of a legal person, there is the additional possibility of up to 10 per cent of consolidated turnover. The risk of repeated misdemeanours makes the practice of halting payments both a risk-management and a supervisory issue: the Financial Supervision Authority may take as the basis for proceedings the fact that reports are misleading, that transactions have been carried out causing significant damage to the institution or its clients, or that a significant issue requires further clarification. The handling of information connected with suspected fraud is not isolated: § 96 of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act punishes the failure to identify, verify or transmit information related to the payer with a fine of up to EUR 5,000,000 or up to twice the profit gained or damage avoided. On the corporate side, however, the protective effect remains conditional, because fraud risk often arises from a work organisation that concentrates too much responsibility on a single person, and the Act does not automatically remedy such internal distribution outside the bank.
In practice, the amendment most directly affects corporate bookkeepers and finance managers, who are the primary target of fraudsters owing to their access to funds, and whose payment orders now become subject to possible halting. According to data from a year earlier, people in Estonia lost EUR 29 million to fraudsters, and companies lost over EUR 10 million from payment-order fraud alone — halting precisely such sums is the economic purpose of the right to delay. For banks, this means investment in monitoring and halting processes, since both non-application and excessive application are punishable, with liability extending up to EUR 5,000,000 and, for legal persons, up to 10 per cent of consolidated turnover. For the Financial Supervision Authority, an opportunity opens to use a graduated system of measures: a precept, then other measures, and finally revocation of the activity licence or the court's recall of a manager.
The sentencing range for a natural person is a pecuniary punishment or up to five years' imprisonment, for a legal person a pecuniary punishment, and the court may also impose extended confiscation of assets derived from the offence pursuant to section 83² of the Penal Code.
Under subsection 1 of section 14 of the Penal Code, a legal person is liable for an act committed in its interests or in breach of its legal obligations by a member of its body, a senior official, or an authorised representative.
For Isamaa and its suspected members, the situation means that criminal proceedings continue, but no charges have been brought against anyone and a court judgment within any realistic timeframe before the Riigikogu elections is not possible. What is new for the reader is that the defence counsel has abandoned the filing of additional motions, and the pace of the proceedings now depends solely on the Prosecutor's Office. The factual element of the news is that the suspicion concerns prohibited donations of approximately EUR 330,000, of which the party is alleged to have accepted EUR 110,234. The legal question that remains at the core of the matter is whether the provision of advertising and analytical services through MTÜ Isamaalised constitutes a prohibited donation, and whether, and on whose part, liability arises for it. The basis of liability of a legal person — here, a political party — is section 14 of the Penal Code, under subsection 1 of which a legal person is liable for an act committed in its interests or in breach of its legal obligations by a member of its body, a senior official, or an authorised representative. Under subsection 2, a legal person is also liable for an omission where it had a legal obligation to act. The content of the suspicion indicates that the donations were accepted by specific individuals — Juhani Jaeger, Kaspar Kokk, Mart Maastik, and Andres Luus — which makes parallel liability of natural persons and the party possible.
On the basis of the sources cited, the sentencing range for a natural person is a pecuniary punishment or up to five years' imprisonment, while for a legal person it is a pecuniary punishment. For such an offence, the court may also impose extended confiscation of assets derived from the offence pursuant to section 83² of the Penal Code, which is practically significant precisely in the event of acceptance of a donation. Isamaa's defence counsel, Jaanus Tehver, has stated that he will no longer make use of the possibility of filing additional motions. Once the familiarisation period has ended, the Prosecutor's Office will decide whether the case goes to court. According to the press representative of the Prosecutor's Office, if charges are filed, the court will take over the management of the proceedings and may, when scheduling hearings, also take account of the wishes of the parties to the proceedings. The investigation as regards Mart Maastik has been closed because no criminal offence was established, which shows that the circle of suspects may still narrow before charges are filed. The earlier proceedings by the Political Parties Financing Surveillance Committee concerning Tõnis Palts's 2021 telephone campaign were terminated after Palts assumed the EUR 420 in costs himself — this shows that the ERJK and criminal proceedings address the same subject matter with separate instruments.
The realistic scenario is that the Prosecutor's Office files charges before the elections, but the court judgment will come after the elections, so that voters will learn before voting only of the defendants' status, not the court's assessment. If charges are filed, the party faces a potential pecuniary punishment, and the natural persons a pecuniary punishment or imprisonment of up to five years, in addition to the possibility of extended confiscation. For the party, this is a matter of resources and reputation, not a procedural obstacle to recruiting candidates, as Reinsalu claims. In practical terms, it is also significant that a third legal person — allegedly Pambos Holding OÜ — is separately liable on suspicion of making a prohibited donation of EUR 220,000, and Isamaa is not suspected of accepting it.
Where a local government unit does not consent to the granting of a mining permit, the mining permit issuer may, at the applicant's proposal, request the consent of the Government of the Republic for the granting of the permit, and the Government grants its consent only where there is an overriding public interest.
The mining permit issuer shall send the application to the local government unit for an opinion, and the local government unit shall submit its opinion in writing within two months of receipt of the application.
The Raasiku municipal council's refusal to grant consent means that the environmental permit for the Kulli II sand quarry planned by OÜ Marina Minerals on state land cannot be successfully processed to completion in its current form. The direct risk concerns not existing extraction, but the very possibility of obtaining the permit: under subsection 55(4) of the Earth's Crust Act, where the local government does not consent to the granting of a mining permit, the permit issuer may, at the applicant's proposal, request consent from the Government of the Republic, and the Government grants such consent only where there is an overriding public interest. It is precisely this condition that is decisive here, because the thematic plan for Harju County does not designate the Kulli II quarry, and in the municipal government's assessment there is no public interest. As a procedural rule, the processing of a mining permit application is suspended from the moment consent is sought from the Government of the Republic until the Government's decision (subsection 55(4¹)). In addition, the situation is affected by the fact that the quarry is planned primarily on properties owned by the state (Mäeküla in Saha village and Salu, Kärnerisauna and Sauna in Kadaka village), the making available of which for extraction follows the provisions of section 49 of the Earth's Crust Act.
The Raasiku council's decision constitutes the municipality's official position within this system, and on that basis the permit issuer assesses whether the local government consents to the permit. Since the council refused consent unanimously and demanded, before any permit is granted, a thorough assessment of groundwater, wetland, traffic and road issues, this constitutes a substantial counter-argument in administrative proceedings which the permit issuer must, in effect, rebut in the present case, or which requires the applicant to amend the permit application. If the permit issuer nevertheless wishes to continue the proceedings, it must, under subsection 55(4), seek the consent of the Government of the Republic, and under subsection 55(5) it may refuse to do so if, in the assessment of the Ministry of Climate, there is clearly no public interest in granting the permit. Where extraction takes place on state land, the immovable is made available to the permit holder by lease, usufruct or the establishment of a building right, without an auction (subsections 49(4) and 49(5)), but this presupposes the granting of the permit. The council's demands also concern the use of Raba road, which is in municipal ownership: consent for its use as a haulage route will not be given until the road's suitability has been assessed and the terms of use, reconstruction and maintenance costs have been agreed with the municipality — a matter within the local government's freedom of ownership and contract. [PASEKMÕJU] In practical terms, Marina Minerals faces three courses of action:
For the municipality and the residents of the area, the council's decision means that the arguments concerning the water levels of the settling ponds and boreholes, and traffic load, have been formally submitted in the proceedings and must be addressed by the permit issuer. Point to monitor: the Environmental Board's next step — whether the permit application is processed further in amended form, is suspended, or ends in refusal, and, where applicable, the assessment of the Government of the Republic or the Ministry of Climate regarding the public interest. The adoption of the thematic plan during the course of this year is an additional decision point determining whether Kulli II may in the future become an area of public interest.
"Failure to comply with an obligation prescribed in a legal act implementing an international sanction or imposing a sanction by the Government of the Republic, or breach of a prohibition ... is punishable by a pecuniary punishment or imprisonment of up to five years."
"A natural or legal person, entity or body is not liable for the application of an international sanction if they acted in good faith."
For Estonian companies and financial institutions, the movement of Russian diesel on sanctioned tankers primarily means that their duty to verify counterparties to transactions and services becomes practically decisive. The analysis is based on the International Sanctions Act, Section 3 of which defines an international sanction as a foreign policy measure, and Section 3(3) of which permits sanctions to restrict international trade and transactions. Under Section 5, the subject of a sanction is a natural or legal person, entity or body designated either by a general description or by listing. Under Section 6, a violation consists of failure to comply with an obligation or breach of a prohibition prescribed in the implementing legal act, and pursuant to Section 9(1), the implementing legal act is, for example, a regulation of the Council of the European Union. Liability therefore does not depend on whether the tanker flies a sanctioned flag, but on whether the specific transaction involves goods, services or persons prohibited under the implementing legal act.
An Estonian operator's obligation is to verify the parties to a transaction, the vessel and the goods against applicable prohibitions and, where necessary, to contact the competent authority in the field, which under Section 11(1) issues administrative acts and responds to sanctions-related inquiries. Domestic implementation is coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which under Section 10(1) monitors the imposition of sanctions and notifies the authorities responsible for implementation. Where a transaction involves funds, the financial sanctions specifics of Section 14 apply: the obligation to freeze funds and the prohibition of financing prohibited goods or services, granting loans, opening accounts or concluding insurance contracts. Under Section 13³, a credit institution must notify the Tax and Customs Board of suspected violations of the prohibition on importing or exporting goods, and the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority of suspected violations relating to services. A person subject to special obligations must maintain the risk mitigation and risk management system prescribed in Section 22¹, which encompasses due diligence measures and internal control rules. Liability is limited by Section 6¹(1): a person is not liable if they acted in good faith in applying the sanctions and neither knew nor should have known that their activity was contrary to the sanctions. In the event of a violation, Section 93¹ of the Penal Code applies, providing for a pecuniary punishment or imprisonment of up to five years, or up to six years for an offence committed repeatedly or by a group. A violation committed through negligence, where the elements of a criminal offence are absent, is punishable under Section 93² by a pecuniary punishment or imprisonment of up to three years, and in the case of a legal person, by a pecuniary punishment.
In practice, the risk is greatest for companies in the transport, logistics, insurance and financial sectors that are involved in the transport of Russian-origin fuel or its financing. Possible specific consequences include:
Proof of good faith under Section 6¹ serves as a defence only if the company has a documented risk management system and due diligence measures. As monitoring points, notifications from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding amendments to sanctions via the channels referred to in Section 10(1)(4) and administrative acts by competent authorities concerning specific vessels or transactions should be expected.
Correction. The article's assertion that the statute "progressively banned the permanent keeping of dogs on chains" is partial and conditional: from the underlying materials (the requirements for keeping companion animals) it emerges that a dog attached to a running line is subject to requirements with specific minimum dimensions (10 m of movement along the line and at least 2 m of width in both directions); accordingly, what is involved is a REFINED RESTRICTION on the permanent keeping of dogs on chains or running lines, subject to certain requirements, not a general and absolute ban. The article fails to mention that this is a progressive restriction whose technical conditions derive from a subordinate act (the requirements for keeping companion animals) rather than from the prohibition provision as such — a more precise formulation would be that "the conditions for the permanent keeping of dogs on chains or running lines were tightened, including minimum movement ranges being required", rather than that "permanent keeping on chains" was banned in general. [PRAKTIKINE_REIKSME]: For the operator of a shelter or foster home (and their adviser), it is now essential to distinguish three separate normative levels, because the strength of the arguments varies according to the level. First, the basis for the obligation to hold an operating licence lies in the typified list of fields of activity in § 28 of the Veterinary Act, so the objection of "suppressing voluntary initiative" is not a directly dispositive ground — when challenging the processing of an operating licence application, one must rely on the specific field of activity in the list, not on emotive animal-welfare rhetoric. Second, the objection to the parameters of keeping conditions (number of cats, litter trays) is strongest precisely at the stage of drafting the implementing regulation (the administrative procedure involving veterinarians and animal rescuers), not in a protest directed against the Riigikogu vote, because Chapter 2 of the Animal Protection Act provides only general requirements (minimal contamination risk, enabling species-typical behaviours), not numerical criteria. Third, the risk to be avoided: extending the veterinarian's responsibility over the network of foster homes to the implementation of disease-control measures is, in the author's assessment, drafted too broadly, and such wording is vulnerable under administrative law, because the proportionality between responsibility and power of control is the basis of the requirement's legality — this wording must be reviewed before the implementing regulation enters into force; otherwise there is a risk that the regulation's requirement will be impossible to fu
"A shelter must designate a veterinarian with an overview of the animals' state of health, but employing a full-time veterinarian is not mandatory."
"The deadline prescribed by statute is a minimum period for finding the animal's owner or a new home, not an obligation to euthanise."
The animal shelter operating permit requirement, which enters into force in 2028, transforms animal rescue activities into an administratively regulated field of activity in which the state controls keeping conditions and veterinary safety. On 21 October, the Riigikogu adopted the Bill Amending the Animal Protection Act and the Veterinary Act (899 SE), which establishes an operating permit requirement for animal shelters as of 2028. Under § 1 of the Animal Protection Act, the Act protects animals against human activities that endanger their health or welfare, and the protection of animals against diseases is regulated by the Veterinary Act. The regime for stray animals kept in shelters is specified in the procedure for the capture and keeping of stray animals, which places the obligation to organise shelters on the local municipality.
Under the operating permit system, a permit is applied for in the specified fields of activity, including the keeping of animals at an undertaking, and a veterinary inspection is carried out during the permit-granting procedure. The purpose of veterinary supervision is the protection of animal and human health and animal welfare, including verification of compliance in the procedure for granting an operating or other permit. The practical requirements applicable to animal shelters are as follows:
The procedure for capturing stray animals provides that the local municipality must arrange for stray animals to be placed in a shelter, animals placed in a shelter must be examined by a veterinarian without delay, and animals of different sexes, different species, and sick or injured animals must be housed separately. Upon capture, it is checked whether the animal is identifiable and whether it can be returned to its owner immediately; an identifiable animal is placed in a shelter until it is returned. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act apply to administrative proceedings under the Animal Protection Act, taking into account the particularities of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls.
In practice, the amendment affects small animal rescue organisations and volunteers the most, as they must obtain an operating permit or organise their activities as a network of foster homes before 2028. Local municipalities face the question of how to finance the care of stray animals and who bears the costs of long-term keeping — the author of the news article considers taking over the financing of the sterilisation of animals collected from the streets out of the hands of volunteers to be a matter of first priority. The requirements set out in the draft implementing regulation are still being discussed with veterinarians and animal rescuers, so the actual burden on shelters will depend on the final wording of those requirements.