KNAB announced on 2 October 2026 that the airBaltic official’s case reached prosecutors on 30 September. It alleges a €55,360 markup on spare-parts sales generated unjustified profit for a company linked to the official.
For business readers, this case raises a practical question: how can a company ensure that an asset's sale price and the choice of buyer serve its interests? Answering this requires separating the circumstances of this particular case from general governance recommendations.
What does “seeks prosecution” mean?
Referring a case to prosecutors is not, in itself, a charge brought by a prosecutor or a finding of guilt. The prosecutor decides whether to initiate criminal prosecution; the individual retains the presumption of innocence. This is established by Sections 19 and 401–403 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
At the time of writing, on 5 October 2026, no newer prosecutorial decision in this case was found in the public sources checked. This does not mean that such a decision could not have been made or could not be published later.
What can be concluded about the amount and the official?
A markup must not automatically be equated with a court-established loss to the company or an amount personally received by the official. These are different claims, each requiring its own evidential basis.
airBaltic spokesperson Augusts Zilberts told LETA that the suspect is neither a current nor a former member of the company's management board or supervisory board. The company's response is available in LETA's report on PRESS.LV.
Five questions for reviewing a company's asset sale
The following is an editorial practical checklist, not a conclusion that airBaltic failed to apply these controls or that a particular individual committed an offence.
- How is the price justified? Retain comparable offers or a valuation, together with the reasons for choosing the sale price. Expensive or specialised assets require an explanation even when there are few potential buyers.
- Who is actually acquiring the asset? Check the buyer's owners and known connections to those preparing the transaction. If an intermediary is used, document its economic role and the justification for its fee.
- Who prepares the transaction and who approves it? Assess the need for independent approval, particularly where one person has information about the buyer, can set the price and is authorised to organise the sale.
- Can the decision be traced? Keep the price justification, reasons for selecting the buyer, approvals, contract, invoice, and asset transfer and payment documents in one place.
- What should happen if suspicions arise? Ensure that evidence is preserved and an independent review takes place. Assign the assessment to people whose interests are not connected to the transaction under review.
What can a business leader do now?
Select a significant asset sold recently and try to reconstruct the entire decision-making process from the documents. Could another manager understand the price, the choice of buyer and the sequence of approvals without verbal explanations?
If the answer is no, there is a reason to improve documentation and approval procedures. A documentation gap does not, by itself, prove criminal conduct, but addressing it benefits the company without waiting for a dispute or investigation.
Comments
No comments yet. Yours could be the first!
Add a comment