The former lawyer failed to wash his uniform due to corruption – Respublika.lt

There was no doubt

LAT announced on Wednesday that former lawyer Gintaras Ruseckas remains found guilty of influence peddling, and 39.8 thousand. the euro fine was correctly imposed. It was noted that the lower courts did not commit the fundamental violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure, indicated in the cassation complaints.

As “Vakaro žinios” wrote, according to the data of the case, in 2018 Vilnius-based lawyer G. Ruseckas agreed with another then-lawyer Drąsučis Zagreckas that he would influence the judge of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal for a bribe of 22 thousand euros – the goal was to have the lower court’s verdict annulled.

In December 2022, the Panevėžys District Court found G. Ruseckas guilty. However, he was acquitted due to the second episode. The man was also accused of an agreement to give a bribe to D. Zagreck so that he would influence the chairman of the Criminal Cases Department of the Klaipėda District Court. The court stated that when formulating the charge, the prosecutor relied on individual phrases from the conversation recordings, taking them out of context.

At the time, G. Ruseckas claimed to “Vakaro žinias” that the court decided the case in a very biased manner, and the question of the credibility of his former colleague was not resolved. As is known, D. Zagreckas was released from criminal liability in the case in 2020 because he cooperates with law enforcement.

The man did nothing in the Court of Appeal either. As the court stated, after evaluating the testimony of D. Zagreckos, the records of his conversations with G. Ruseckas, the note found in the witness’ office and other evidence, there was no doubt that an agreement on 20,000 was made. EUR for the bribe transfer judge and at least EUR 2000 for the mediator himself.

According to the assessment of the panel of judges, although there is no objective evidence in the case that D. Zagreckas went to talk to the judge, 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. According to the court, the reality of the corrupt agreement is also confirmed by the fact that G. Ruseckas did not doubt D. Zagreck’s influence and believed that he had met with the judge.

It was necessary to check D. Zagreck’s testimony

As “Vakaro žinios” wrote, the former Klaipėda lawyer Aivaras Surblys received a different LAT decision last fall. His case is also separated from the huge pre-trial investigation related to the possible corruption crimes committed by high-ranking judges, lawyers and other persons, which was reported in 2019. in February

Panevėžys District Court in 2022 In March, he was sentenced to 2 years and 3 months in prison for influence peddling. According to officials, in 2017 D. Zagreckas, acting in favor of one person, offered and agreed to give a bribe to A. Surbli, because the colleague possibly promised to influence three Klaipėda judges so that they would make a favorable decision. It was established that D. Zagreckas transferred 10 thousand. euros.

in 2022 in December, the Court of Appeal rejected A. Surbl’s complaint – the man was sent to prison.

However, his lawyer Henrik Mackevičius managed to convince LAT that there are clear holes in the investigation of the case. It was sent back for appeal. After spending about 11 months behind bars, A. Surblys was paroled.

H. Mackevičius stated in the cassation complaint to the LAT: it was not established that A. Surblys and D. Zagreckas operated in an organized group, so he could not be exempted from responsibility in this case, and in such a case, the testimony of this man is not legal and the indictment could not be based on them. In addition, the lawyer indicated that D. Zagreck’s testimony was contradictory, inconsistent, not supported by other evidence, and during the pre-trial investigation, he answered questions that were supposed to be answered.

The LAT agreed that the mentioned testimony of D. Zagreckos in the case was not verified in terms of legality and reliability. The panel of judges also noted that the courts did not follow the practice, according to which more attention must be paid to the assessment of the independence and objectivity of the testimony of such persons