Czech government installs new minister after bitcoin scandal
PRAGUE, June 10 (Reuters) - Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala appointed a new justice minister on Tuesday to replace political veteran Pavel Blazek, who triggered a political storm when he accepted a payment to the state by an ex-convict worth $45 million in bitcoin.
Outcry over the payment could dent the ruling coalition's chances in an October 3-4 election in which they trail the opposition. Blazek, a respected lawyer, has said he did nothing illegal but resigned his post and quit Fiala's Civic Democrat (ODS) party after accepting the donation from a man convicted of running an online drug market.
Fiala named Eva Decroix as the new justice minister and said she was coming at an important time "to restore trust in the ministry and ensure full transparency around the donated bitcoins." He told her to request an immediate independent audit.
The man who made the donation of 468 bitcoins was in jail from 2017 until 2021 after being convicted of involvement in the drug trade, fraud and illegal possession of weapons.
The opposition ANO party plans a no-confidence vote in the government that is likely to fail but may harm Fiala and his allies in voters' eyes.
Blazek was attacked for possibly legitimising the ex-convict's assets, instead of turning to prosecutors or police to help secure them.
Opposition leader Andrej Babis, a former prime minister whose ANO party looks on course to win the most votes in October's election, has blasted the government for corruption.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sheku Bayoh Inquiry to consider application for recusal of chairman
The Sheku Bayoh Inquiry is set to consider issues around fairness from the chairman, in a procedural hearing, after it emerged he met the grieving family several times. Sheku Bayoh, 31, a father-of-two, died after he was restrained by around six police officers who were called to Hayfield Road in Kirkcaldy, Fife, on May 3, 2015. The Crown Office decided not to take legal action against the police involved following an investigation, but the circumstances are being examined at the inquiry. The procedural hearing on Thursday and Friday was ordered by chairman Lord Bracadale to consider an application for his own recusal. It will take place at Capital House in Edinburgh. It comes after Lord Bracadale revealed he has met with the family of Mr Bayoh on at least five occasions since the inquiry began. The family's lawyer, Aamer Anwar, suggested the procedural hearing alone could 'cost the public purse in excess of £1 million'. The hearing follows an application for recusal of the chairman and an assessor on behalf of the Scottish Police Federation, Pc Craig Walker and Nicole Short. Recusal is the legal process by which a judge or other adjudicator steps aside from participating in a case due to potential bias, conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality. Mr Anwar said on behalf of the family: 'The procedural hearing follows an application for recusal of the chair and an assessor on behalf of the Scottish Police Federation, Pc Craig Walker and Nicole Short. 'The hearing will focus on the fairness of the conduct and procedure adopted by the chair in meeting the families of Sheku Bayoh. 'For the record, it is Lord Bracadale who has ordered this hearing. The inquiry will hear oral submissions from core participants. 'All core participants must publicly state their position as to whether they wish the chair to step down – it will be noted by the family as to what position all the public bodies such as Crown Office and the chief constable will adopt, as they have made a great deal over the years about being fully supportive of the public inquiry. 'The Bayoh family believe the federation and those hanging on to their coat-tails do so at the 11th hour, in a pathetic and desperate attempt to sabotage the inquiry. 'The family have watched so many parties who have literally sat on their hands for over 122 days of evidence, never publicly asking a question at a huge legal cost of £20 million to the public, yet this hearing in terms of police lawyers could cost the public in excess of £1 million.' He said the family are 'not giving up' and that 10 years on from Mr Bayoh's death they will 'once more call-out the dangerous arrogance of a criminal justice system that does not like accountability'. The Scottish Police Federation, Crown Office and Police Scotland have been asked for comment.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Oklahoma prepares to execute a man transferred from federal custody by Trump officials
Oklahoma prepared to execute a man Thursday whose transfer to state custody was expedited by the Trump administration. John Fitzgerald Hanson, 61, is set to receive a lethal injection at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester. Hanson was sentenced to die after he was convicted of carjacking, kidnapping and killing a Tulsa woman in 1999. Hanson, whose name in some federal court records is George John Hanson, had been serving a life sentence in federal prison in Louisiana for several unrelated federal convictions. Federal officials transferred him to Oklahoma custody in March to follow through on President Donald Trump's sweeping executive order to more actively support the death penalty. Hanson's attorneys argued in a last-minute appeal that he did not receive a fair clemency hearing last month, claiming that one of the board members who denied him clemency was biased because he worked for the Tulsa County District Attorney's Office when Hanson was prosecuted. A district court judge this week temporary halted the execution, but an appeals court later cleared the way for it. The U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday rejected a separate appeal that alleged a key witness testified against Hanson in exchange for favorable treatment from prosecutors in a criminal case, information that was never disclosed to his defense team. Prosecutors allege Hanson and accomplice, Victor Miller, kidnapped Mary Bowles from a Tulsa shopping mall. Prosecutors allege the pair drove Bowles to a gravel pit near Owasso, where Miller shot and killed property owner Jerald Thurman. The two then drove Bowles a short distance away, where Hanson shot and killed Bowles, according to prosecutors. Miller received a no-parole life prison sentence for his role in the crimes. During last month's clemency hearing, Hanson expressed remorse for his involvement in the crimes and apologized to the victims' families. 'I'm not an evil person,' Hanson said via a video link from the prison. 'I was caught in a situation I couldn't control. I can't change the past, but I would if I could.' Hanson's attorneys acknowledged he participated in the kidnapping and carjacking, but said there was no definitive evidence that he shot and killed Bowles. They painted Hanson as a troubled youth with autism and who was controlled and manipulated by the domineering Miller.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Geert Wilders collapsed the Dutch government. He wanted power, but had no idea how to govern
Earlier this month, Geert Wilders decided he had had enough. 'No signature for our asylum plans. No changes to the coalition agreement. The PVV is leaving the coalition,' he posted on X. After 11 months, he was withdrawing support for the Dutch prime minister Dick Schoof's rightwing cabinet, forcing the Netherlands back to the polls. The decision put an end to Wilders' far-right Freedom party's (PVV) first spell in power. Following an unexpected victory in the 2023 elections, the PVV joined a government for the first time in its 18-year history – alongside the conservative-liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the centrist New Social Contract (NSC), and the agrarian-populist Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB) – although Wilders's coalition partners did not let him become prime minister. But the promise to drastically reduce immigration and implement a strict asylum policy proved difficult to deliver due to numerous constitutional and legal restrictions. The Netherlands now faces a familiar question: What is the 61-year-old politician trying to achieve – and how? Looking solely at his political platform, the answer seems relatively clear. With its emphasis on immigration, national identity, sovereignty, more direct democracy and stricter law enforcement, the PVV is a fairly typical radical rightwing populist party. In the European parliament, the PVV belongs to the Patriots for Europe group, alongside Marine Le Pen's National Rally, Viktor Orbán's Fidesz and Matteo Salvini's League. Within that circle, Wilders is one of the most prominent and pioneering ideologues, introducing a highly alarmist caricature of Islam as a totalitarian ideology of conquest. 'Walk the streets of western Europe today … and you will often see something resembling a medieval Arab city, full of headscarves and burqas … Mass immigration is rapidly changing our culture and identity. Islam is rising, and I do not want Islam to rise! Islam and freedom are incompatible,' he proclaimed in his keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest in May. In Wilders' worldview, Israel is the primary defender of western freedom against Islam and therefore deserves unconditional support. 'If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Paris, or Amsterdam are next,' he said in the Dutch parliament last week. 'Western mothers can sleep peacefully because the mothers of Israeli soldiers lie awake.' Wilders' anti-Islam crusade soon clashed with the Dutch constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. To join the coalition, he put his most extreme positions 'in the freezer', as he described it – including a ban on the Qur'an and the closure of all mosques. Instead, he focused on curbing asylum migration from Muslim countries, repatriating Syrians and supporting Israeli military actions in Gaza and the West Bank (he consistently refers to the latter as Judea and Samaria). Yet, even in these areas, he faced setbacks. Under pressure from parliament and public opinion, the Dutch foreign minister, Caspar Veldkamp, has recently adopted a slightly more critical stance toward the Israeli government – much to Wilders' displeasure. In justifying the fall of his cabinet, Wilders mainly blamed resistance from his coalition partners, the bureaucracy, the courts and the media. But the truth is, he also has himself to blame. Nearly 20 years after its launch in February 2006, the PVV is still hardly a political party in the conventional sense. Exploiting a loophole in Dutch electoral law, Wilders chose not to allow any formal members into his party. As a result, neither PVV ministers nor parliamentarians are actual members of the party. Ultimately, he has failed to build and lead a professional political organisation that is capable of governing. Wilders adopted his party's unusual structure partly out of fear of attracting opportunists and troublemakers. But according to many observers, he is also a deeply suspicious and solitary figure by nature, someone who prefers total control and avoids consultation. His permanent security detail, a result of a fatwa, has likely reinforced these traits and made it even harder to establish a party structure. 'If I wanted to speak to a candidate, it had to happen in a hidden hotel, on the sixth floor, with six policemen in front of my bedroom door,' he once claimed in an interview. As a result, the PVV remains entirely dependent on Wilders' personal political instincts. While parties such as National Rally, League and Fidesz have large organisations with tens of thousands of members, local chapters, professional offices and well-funded campaign machines, the PVV is little more than Wilders' small, tightly controlled entourage. When he wants to change direction, there is no party congress or critical internal faction he has to convince. This is an undeniable advantage in today's volatile political landscape, but its cost is high. First, the PVV remains poor. In the Netherlands, only parties with more than 1,000 members qualify for state subsidies. The impact of this underfunding is evident in its amateurish election campaigns, low-quality videos, clumsy communication and a lack of skilled personnel. Second, the party operates in near total opacity. Its hierarchy, finances and candidate selection process are a mystery not only to outsiders – politicians, journalists, lobbyists – but even to its own supporters. As a result, many potential candidates and volunteers shy away. Who is willing to risk their reputation for a career in such a controversial and opaque organisation? Who dares to become a minister or junior minister for a party that revolves entirely around the unpredictable whims of one man? When Wilders was required to nominate ministers, he discovered he had no capable candidates with administrative experience, an understanding of the Dutch political system or knowledge of the constitution. He had never invested in training his own people or building a network of future administrators. In desperation, he appointed a few loyal early followers such as Marjolein Faber as minister for asylum and immigration; she subsequently got herself embroiled in a scandal for refusing to sign off on royal honours for individuals who volunteered to help asylum seekers and falsely stating that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not democratically elected (she retracted her words). Other PVV ministers also stood out mainly because of their blunders and incompetence. After the cabinet's collapse, his party's ministers seemed almost relieved when speaking to the press. They had been cast in roles they couldn't fulfil and never truly wanted. Wilders claims he wants to become prime minister after the next elections. But does he truly mean it? There is little evidence that he is taking the country's governance more seriously. After the failed experiment of the past months, future coalition partners will also take this aspect into account – this week the VVD ruled out entering another coalition this with this 'unbelievably untrustworthy partner'. It seems that Wilders, the solitary ideologue, is really more interested in opposition, where the burdens of responsibility are far lighter. Koen Vossen is a political historian and the author of The Power of Populism: Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands
