Roman Janoušek, a businessman, faced a setback when the Czech Supreme Court rejected his claim for approximately 155 million Czech crowns in lost profits related to the Chambon case. The Supreme Court ruled that the majority of his appeal was not valid, but it did instruct a lower court, the District Court for Prague 2, to re-evaluate his demand for compensation of legal costs. This request for legal costs is significantly lower, amounting to tens of thousands of crowns, as opposed to the original multi-million claim. Earlier in the process, the Czech Ministry of Justice had awarded Janoušek over 736,000 crowns as compensation and issued an apology. However, the courts thereafter granted him only an additional 4,500 crowns for legal expenses in connection to his defense, dismissing the bulk of his claims regarding unlawful prosecution and asset devaluation due to inflation and legal issues. Janoušek contended that his assets were seized unlawfully and that the government should have invested the funds instead of freezing them. The implications of this ruling are notable as they reflect the ongoing issues regarding the legal treatment of seized assets in Czechia, especially in cases involving high-profile individuals. Janoušek's case raises questions about how state actions can impact financial loss claims, and the court's decision may influence future cases regarding asset confiscation and compensation for legal costs in the Czech legal system.