The Czech Ministry of Justice has been extremely criticized after it revealed that an unbiased audit accepted Bitcoin donations from convicted offenders with out correct due diligence.

In response to a July 31 report launched by Grant Thornton and shared by the Division on X, authorities have been unable to evaluate the authorized and reputational dangers related to the donation. The auditor stated the ministry ignored the pink flag and failed to use normal governance protocols earlier than approving the transaction.

The Bitcoin donation was made by Tomáš Jirčikovaky, who was beforehand convicted of operating the sheep market, a darkish internet platform used to promote unlawful medication. The ministry bought the bitcoin, which was later donated, for CZK 956.8 million, about $45 million, with out addressing the suspicious origins of the funds.

The audit famous that there was no proof that the Division of Justice correctly evaluated the transaction earlier than accepting it. Regardless of clear warning indicators, the ministry added that it was unable to deal with the donations as excessive danger.

In the meantime, the report additionally criticized the Ministry of Finance for accepting income from Bitcoin gross sales with out formal assessment.

Grant Thornton additionally defined that all the course of could be handled as a critical governance course, and warned that each ministries have been subjected to authorized and moral scrutiny.

Czech MP Ivan Madrova responded to the findings by stating that the audit confirmed long-standing public issues. She stated:

“The ministry shouldn’t settle for items. There’s nonetheless an essential query mark. There isn’t any reply. I do not even understand how a lot the audit value.”

The scandal sparked widespread backlash in June, resulting in the insecurity within the authorities and the resignation of then-Judicial Minister Pavel Brazic.

In his response, Blazek downplayed the outcomes of the audit. He recognized the report as no authorized violations and claimed that it merely repeated “publicly recognized dangers and assumptions.”

He added:

“The so-called abstract of the primary a part of the audit doesn’t point out a violation of any explicit authorized obligation or rules, which argues from the start of the “case.” There are not any new discoveries, and it is a helpful textual content within the article heading, however there are outdated content material. ”