Constitutional Court Rejects Lobbyist Janoušek's Claim for 155 Million Crowns in Compensation Over Seized Assets

The Czech Constitutional Court has thrown out a complaint filed by lobbyist Roman Janoušek, who had demanded nearly 155 million crowns in compensation from the state after his assets remained seized for almost a decade during a criminal case that ultimately ended in his full acquittal.

Janoušek and several co-defendants stood trial on suspicion of defrauding insurance companies of more than 239 million crowns and attempting to obtain another 77 million. The case centered on the activities of the company Chambon. Courts, however, were unable to prove that the firm had withheld any information from insurers, and in February 2023 an appellate court definitively acquitted the lobbyist and all other defendants, who had denied wrongdoing from the very start.

During the investigation, police seized cash and gold belonging to Janoušek. According to court documents, this included banknotes in various currencies worth roughly 54 million crowns, gold worth nearly 30 million crowns, as well as shares. The businessman argued that over the course of almost ten years, his assets had lost value due to inflation and the fact that the funds had sat idle without generating any income.

Janoušek calculated his claim as follows: around 44 million crowns in interest for the ten-year delay caused by the asset seizure, 35 million crowns in inflation-related losses, and 86 million crowns in lost profits. In his constitutional complaint, he acknowledged the state's right to seize assets during an investigation but insisted that, once his innocence had been proven, he was entitled to compensation — stressing that he himself had done nothing to prolong the criminal proceedings.

The lobbyist claimed he had intended to invest the funds in shares of Czech or foreign companies, or to place them in interest-bearing bank accounts, which he had actively used at the time. He dismissed as unrealistic the notion that the money would have simply sat untouched, earning nothing, for nearly ten years.

However, the Constitutional Court panel, led by reporting judge Pavel Šámal, found these arguments unconvincing. According to the panel, the length of the asset seizure could not be considered excessive — even though it stretched to almost a decade — given how exceptionally complex the underlying criminal case was. The court also noted that neither the evidence presented nor the claimant's own statements showed that the seizure had seriously worsened his financial situation or left him unable to cover everyday living expenses. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court found no violation of Janoušek's constitutional rights.

Around Prague, based on reporting by novinky.cz