KNAB reviews MP Leila Rasima’s housing compensation

Latvia’s Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau has begun reviewing whether parliamentary deputy Leila Rasima was justified in claiming housing-rental compensation, LSM reported on Wednesday.

The bureau launched the review on its own initiative after information emerged publicly about possible dishonest conduct linked to the compensation. KNAB confirmed to LSM that it is examining the basis for requesting and paying Rasima’s compensation.

Rasima, a member of the Progressives party elected to parliament from Rēzekne, receives 610 euros a month in housing compensation. Her declaration of interests shows that she owns an apartment in Riga.

Rasima told Latvian Television that the apartment effectively belongs to her mother, who lives there. She said she had never lived in the apartment or received any financial benefit from it, and described accusations circulated on social media as unfounded.

The Saeima Press Service said there had been no breach of the law by the deputy. It also said, however, that deputies were responsible for assessing their actual need when requesting compensation.

KNAB said it had repeatedly drawn the Saeima’s attention in recent years to shortcomings in the rules governing compensation for deputies’ transport and housing-rental expenses. The bureau said the shortcomings created opportunities for the system to be used dishonestly.

According to KNAB, the current rules may allow people to obtain compensation dishonestly by declaring a place of residence more than 39 kilometres from Riga, including cases in which they actually own housing in Riga or within 39 kilometres of the capital.

KNAB said its previous practice had identified cases in which Saeima deputies received compensation unlawfully. In two cases, deputies were prosecuted for fraudulently obtaining compensation for transport and housing-rental expenses, and both cases resulted in final convictions.

The bureau said stricter control over compensation payments could reduce the risk of dishonest claims and payments, including through additional requirements for the documents submitted and assessed.