Espionage intrigues in Latgale

On October 9, 1927, Ivan Nikitin, a typist from the secret department of the 11th Department of the Sebezh Border Guard of the State Political Directorate of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the Soviet Union (hereinafter referred to as the GPU), arrived at the Zilupe railway station. The newcomer asked the chief of the local border guard post, Kārlis Kaijas, whom he met on the station platform, to take him to Captain Ervīns Akermanis of the Army's Operational Headquarters. However, I. Nikitin was taken to another employee of the operational department, Fričis Firks, to whom he handed over various documents (circulars, secret telegrams, etc.), including lists with the names of Latvian border guards. According to I. Nikitin's testimony, the persons included in the documents had cooperated with the security institutions of the Soviet Union and provided them with information about the activities, personnel, armament, deployment, etc. of the Latvian army, border guards, guards, Intelligence Directorate, etc. Based on the relevant materials, the law enforcement authorities of the Republic of Latvia launched an extensive investigation, which resulted in the arrest of several persons and the initiation of a criminal case for espionage. Initially, 46 persons were detained, of whom 28 were brought to trial, while the remaining 18 were placed under police supervision.

The ethnic affiliation of the persons involved in the crime was diverse, as evidenced by the fact that out of all the accused, 19 were Latvians, 15 Russians, eight Belarusians, seven Poles and one Lithuanian. It should be noted that the newspaper “Iekšlietu Ministrijas Vēstnesis” in its February 16, 1928 issue in connection with this criminal offense particularly emphasized the fact that the majority of those arrested were poor and unscrupulous, as well as the fact that 62% of the accused were “non-Latvians”. It should be noted, however, that the majority of them were Latvian citizens.

Taking into account the seriousness and scope of the criminal case, on May 23, 1928, the then Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Latvia Eduards Laimiņš (1872-1945) transferred the case to the Latvian Military Court for consideration. Most of the accused were imprisoned in Daugavpils Prison, and only two persons were not subject to a security measure related to deprivation of liberty. During the investigation, it was established that several of the accused persons had previously come under the attention of Latvian security structures. For example, Mikhail Kuznetsovs was expelled from the border zone (within a 15-kilometer radius) for illegally transporting persons across the border between Latvia and the USSR, while Aleksejs Veselovs and Silvestrs Buliga maintained secret contacts with Soviet border guards. Information also came in about other persons that they were politically unreliable and engaged in espionage.

Shortly before the trial, the newspaper "Segodņa" reported that the investigation had been delayed because one of the defendants, border guard Antons Rudzītis, feigned insanity and was sent to the hospital, but after in-depth examinations, doctors found him sane.

Trial of the case

In July 1928, all 28 defendants (11 border guards of various ranks, one forester, a railway conductor, as well as several border residents) were transferred from Daugavpils prison to Rēzekne. The newspaper “Latgales Ziņas” wrote that a limited number of people would be allowed to attend the trial and that special entrance cards would be required. The first court-martial hearing took place on July 19 in the premises of the local Russian Gymnasium (today the building of the Latgale Regional Court). The hearing of the case aroused great public interest, as evidenced by the fact that all the seats in the courtroom were occupied. Most of the defendants were from Ludza district, including several border guards. This can be explained by the fact that the majority of criminal acts were committed precisely in these areas of the Latvian-USSR border zone.

The charge was brought for espionage for the Soviet Union, which according to the Penal Code of the Republic of Latvia was classified as treason and provided for severe punishments, including the highest penalty – the death penalty. During the trial of the case, it was revealed that several of the defendants had received financial compensation from the Soviet Union's special services for providing specific information. For example, the defendant Hermanis Barons received 140 lats, while others, depending on the importance of the information, received from 20 to 60 lats. All those involved were given nicknames by representatives of the Soviet intelligence service (Kislij, Komarov, Chernova, Etna, Rabochij, etc.).

One of the main defendants – the head of the Ludza border post in the Zilupe district, a retired Latvian army officer, Belarusian Kornēlijs Korņilovičs (1893-1928) delivered a stamped letter to the secret part of the Soviet border guard in Sebeža, which contained the mobilization plan of the Latvian border guard. The accused also handed over the secret code of the border guard and other valuable information to Soviet agents, receiving a specific monthly reward for it. During his activities, Soviet security service employees gave K. Korņilovič the nickname “Sosed”. The aforementioned K. Korņilovičs was also an officer in the South Russian armed forces led by General Anton Deņikin (Антон Иванович Деникин, 1872-1947) and participated in battles against the Bolsheviks. Also among those on trial were Vladislavs Mickevičs, Timofejs Sinitsins, Roberts Škapars, etc., as well as two women – Emīlija Šmidta and Anna Minčonoka.

During the trial, 57 witnesses were questioned, including I. Nikitins, an employee of the Latvian Political Administration, K. Kaija, the head of the 4th post of the Ludza district border guard, etc. I. Nikitins was the main witness for the prosecution. Her testimonies and the wide range of materials on the persons accused in the case significantly facilitated the further investigation of the crime. However, the investigation materials do not reveal I. Nikitins' motivation for "surrendering his superiors". It is possible that such information was at the disposal of the Latvian Political Administration, which did not disclose it publicly. The newspaper "Segodna", like other Latvian press publications, reported him as a "defector". The newspaper also emphasized that until the day of the trial, I. Nikitins' whereabouts were unknown, this was done for security reasons, since "increased attention from various suspicious persons" had previously been observed.

Several defendants admitted that they had been forced to provide the GRU with the necessary information (agents had threatened their personal lives and the lives of their loved ones), while others said that they had done so voluntarily. During the trial, it became clear that the most valuable information had been sent to Pskov and Leningrad by GPU agents. From the testimonies of several witnesses, it emerged that many GPU employees were of Latvian origin, as they were fluent in Latvian, thus facilitating the process of obtaining the necessary information.

Verdict

After reviewing all the materials, the assistant prosecutor of the Military Court, Lieutenant Colonel Jānis Palkavnieks (1894-1945), demanded that nine defendants be sentenced to the highest penalty – the death penalty, while the rest were sentenced to forced labor for a term of 10 to 15 years. Although the Military Court panel did not fully satisfy the prosecutor's demands, the verdict was generally harsh. On July 24, 1928, the Latvian Military Court sentenced four defendants: K. Korņilovich, Timofey Siņitsin, H. Baroman and Ignat Barkan to death (hanging). Five more persons were sentenced to life imprisonment, while ten criminals were sentenced to various terms of forced labor (from 5 to 15 years). The court acquitted the other nine defendants in the criminal case. Later, after a pardon by the then President of the Republic of Latvia, Gustavs Zemgals (1971-1939), the sentences of three of the four criminals sentenced to death were commuted to life in prison (the only one whose maximum sentence was not changed was K. Korņilovičs).

On August 30, 1928, K. Karņilović was executed. This took place approximately three kilometers from Daugavpils, in the same place where five of the six members of the “Japonchik gang” sentenced to death were executed. The execution was attended by the assistant prosecutor J. Palkavnieks, a priest, representatives of the police and the Latvian army, a doctor, a paramedic, as well as the defendant’s defense attorney Jānis Budkovskis (1893-1933).

International resonance and the “aftertaste” of the lawsuit

The investigation and trial of the case caused a great stir in the Soviet Union, where it was called a “political case.” Soon after, as a response to what was happening in Latvia, a similar trial was organized in Leningrad, which was locally known as the “Latvian spy trial.” Several Latvians were accused of spying for the Republic of Latvia in court, who were in fact simply border violators or smugglers. The organization of such a model trial can be seen as the Soviet Union’s “response” to the Rēzekne spy trial. The press of the Weimar Republic also wrote about the specific event, reporting on the indignation prevailing in the highest circles of the Soviet Union regarding the course of the Rēzekne spy trial.

The scandal that occurred not only shocked Latvian society, but also caused reflections and in some cases even distrust in the activities of state security structures. As a result, inspections of the activities of the border guard and several other security institutions took place, and in some cases also reorganization (dismissal of employees, increased control and supervision, etc.). The lawsuit that occurred also brought to the fore the general situation in the vicinity of the border between Latvia and the Soviet Union, including socio-economic problems (standard of living of the population, remuneration of border guards, etc.). This incident even became the reason for the measures implemented by the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Latvia, which were related to improving the quality of border guard work (stricter personnel selection took place, remuneration of border guards was increased, material and technical base was renovated, etc.). The “espionage scandal” also exacerbated the future diplomatic relations between Latvia and the Soviet Union, which had been significantly “undermined” since the scandalous events of February 5, 1926, when the Soviet Union’s diplomatic courier Teodors Nete (1896-1926) was killed as a result of an attack by criminals in Ikšķile, while the other – Johans Mahmastāls (1892-1942) – was seriously injured.

Excerpt from the book: “Imprints of the Era” Stories of 20th-Century Latgale. Ligita Purinaša, Kaspars Strods