The question is ethically justified, but first and foremost, our law enforcement authorities must stand up for our ordinary, deceived citizens. In our view, this is a beneficial agreement for our country if the court confirms it. The agreement between the Estonian state and Yermolaev does not mean that other countries will lack the opportunity in the future to apprehend and prosecute the criminal. In this case, Estonia did its homework first and was the first to submit a request to Interpol to detain Yermolaev, which is why he was sent here in the first place. What happens to him next depends on the homework done by other countries and also on where he goes as a free man after leaving Estonia.
As for the legal-philosophical question of crime and punishment, it is hardly likely that our victims would have been made happier if Arthur Yermolaev had sat in, say, Tartu prison for three or five years, and at the expense of our taxpayers at that.
Yes, the Estonian legal system is oriented more towards punishment compared to, for example, the American legal system, which is oriented more towards restoring the pre-crime situation and compensating for damages. Perhaps we too should take a lesson from the Americans – especially in the case of economic crimes – who seek to reach out-of-court settlements and ensure victims are compensated. Achieving both at once – both punishment and compensation for damages – is very difficult. For now, our people have gotten their money back, and that is good.
