The lawyer and the risk record
Mārtiņš Bunkus worked as a lawyer and insolvency administrator. His professional work involved distressed companies, creditors and contested assets. Public reporting records that he had contacted police before his death about a suspected plan to kill him. That history is relevant to the chronology, but it does not itself prove who planned the eventual crime.
This page centers Bunkus as the victim. It does not turn disputes around his professional work into a justification for violence or treat allegations about business interests as established motive unless supported by the court record.
The killing in Riga
Bunkus was killed on 30 May 2018 while driving near Riga's Forest Cemetery during the morning rush. Investigators treated the attack as a planned contract killing. The later prosecution theory described a concealed firing position and a chain of roles rather than a spontaneous confrontation.
From a long investigation to three defendants
The case remained unresolved publicly for years. Latvian police announced a major breakthrough in 2022, saying investigators had reconstructed the chain from those alleged to have ordered the killing through its organization and execution. In April 2023, prosecutors sent three defendants to trial on charges connected to aggravated murder.
Prosecutors alleged that Viktor Krivošejs carried out the shooting and that businessmen Mihails Uļmans and Aleksandrs Babenko ordered or organized the killing. Until judgment, those propositions were allegations. The Riga City Court's 2024 verdict changed their legal status at first instance, but appellate review means the convictions must still be described with precision.
The October 2024 first-instance judgment
On 29 October 2024, the Riga City Court convicted all three defendants. Krivošejs received life imprisonment. Uļmans and Babenko each received fifteen years in prison and probation supervision. The court also ordered compensation to members of Bunkus's family.
The prosecution accepted the life sentence for the shooter but challenged the terms imposed on Uļmans and Babenko, asking the appellate court to increase each prison term to twenty years. The defendants also appealed, disputing guilt and procedure.
Why “convicted” does not yet mean “finally resolved”
Appeal proceedings began in the Riga Regional Court on 16 October 2025. In June 2026, the court declined to send the case back to the trial court. A later update dated 26 August 2026 reported that the appellate panel rejected additional defense applications and kept Uļmans in custody. No final appellate judgment was located before this page was published.
For that reason, Crime by Region classifies the case as partially adjudicated. It records the existing convictions and sentences without presenting them as final after all ordinary appeals. It also distinguishes the prosecution's theory, the trial court's findings and the defendants' continuing challenges.
Timeline
- 30 May 2018 — Mārtiņš Bunkus is killed while driving in Riga.
- May–August 2022 — Police report a breakthrough and arrests connected to the alleged contract-killing chain.
- 26 April 2023 — Prosecutors send the case against three defendants to Riga City Court.
- 29 October 2024 — The trial court convicts all three; one receives life imprisonment and two receive fifteen-year terms.
- 5 December 2024 — Prosecutors file an appeal protest seeking longer terms for two defendants.
- 16 October 2025 — Appellate hearings begin in Riga Regional Court.
- 26 August 2026 — The latest located report confirms that appellate proceedings remain active.
Frequently asked questions
Was anyone convicted?
Yes. The Riga City Court convicted three defendants in October 2024.
What sentences were imposed?
Viktor Krivošejs received life imprisonment; Mihails Uļmans and Aleksandrs Babenko each received fifteen years.
Are those sentences final?
No. Defendants appealed, and prosecutors sought longer terms for two defendants. Appellate review was still underway in August 2026.
Why does the page avoid calling the case fully solved?
Because the first-instance convictions remain subject to an unfinished appeal.