Former Vilnius lawyer G. Ruseckas is finally convicted of influence peddling

The Supreme Court of Lithuania (LAT) on Wednesday upheld the guilty verdict for influence trading in the amount of 39.8 thousand. EUR fine to the convicted ex-Vilnius lawyer Gintarus Ruseckis.

The three-judge panel rejected the appeals of the convict’s two lawyers, who requested the annulment of previous court decisions or the case to be returned to the appellate court, court representative Rimantė Krauliše told Elta.

The LAT’s verdict is final and non-appealable.

ELTA reminds that in 2022 December 29 The Panevėžys District Court found lawyer G. Ruseckas guilty of influence peddling, and he was fined 40,000. EUR fine. Including the two days spent in temporary detention by the lawyer, the final sentence is 39 thousand. A fine of 800 euros.

The court found that G. Ruseckas directly offered, promised and agreed to give a bribe to another lawyer, Drąsučis Zagrecks, so that the latter, using his acquaintances, would influence the judge of the Criminal Cases Division of the Court of Appeal, who was the former chairman of the panel of judges in the case relevant to G. Ruseckas.

Last September, the Lithuanian Court of Appeal rejected the appeals of G. Ruseckos and his lawyer. He announced that, after evaluating the testimony of the exonerated witness D. Zagrecks, the records of his conversations with G. Ruseck, the note found in the witness’ office and other evidence, the panel of judges of the Court of Appeal had no doubts that the convicted G. Ruseck offered D. Zagreck, promised and agreed on the transfer of a clearly defined bribe of 20,000 euros to the judge of the Court of Appeal and at least 2,000 euros to the witness D. Zagreck for his contribution to the realization of the joint plan.

According to this court, it was established that when discussing Mr. Ruseck’s corrupt proposal, Mr. Zagreck and Mr. Ruseck clearly understood the essence of the submitted request and the conditions for its fulfillment, that is, they acted with direct intent. In the assessment of the panel of judges of the Court of Appeal, although there is no objective evidence in the case that Mr. Zagreckas went to talk to the judge of the Court of Appeal, this does not affect the classification of the criminal act, since the act of influence peddling is completed from the moment of the offer, agreement and promise.

In the case examined by the Panevėžys District Court, Mr. Rusecki was charged with influence peddling for two episodes of this crime. The court found G. Ruseckas guilty of one episode of influence peddling.

The court established that the accused agreed with the lawyer D. Zagrecks that he would, for a fee, influence Judge Kęstutis Jucis of the Criminal Cases Division of the Court of Appeals, so that the latter, when examining the appeals of the persons represented by G. Ruseckos, would overturn the verdict of the lower court and acquit G. Ruseckos’ clients. K. Jucys is dead, he was also under suspicion.

This case is separate from the large-scale so-called judicial corruption case.

D. Zagreck, who helped uncover corruption crimes, is exempt from criminal liability and is protected by the state.