Scandal in the Kaunas police: its patrol thought it had robbed the offenders, but it turned out to be a colleague

This crime, committed almost a month ago, was not reported in the Kaunas police summaries for the media. This secret became public only today – after the General Prosecutor’s Office released a report about how one officer of the Kaunas County Chief Police Commissariat was punished by the court for stealing a colleague while on duty. The portal kauno.diena.lt was able to additionally find out that Indrė S., who after graduating from the Lithuanian Police School, worked in the Kaunas County Police Response Board for about two and a half years, was dismissed from the police service before the aforementioned court decision, which can still be appealed.

Everything is captured

On that fateful April 14 of this year, the patrol of the aforementioned Kaunas Police Board and a colleague were on duty at the “Žalgiris” arena, where a basketball match was held between the Kaunas “Žalgiris” and Vilnius “Ryto” teams. During them, two persons were arrested for violation of public order, whom Indrė S. brought with a colleague to the duty station of Kaunas County Chief Police Commissariat.

It was there that she stole herself soon after, and the video of the video camera installed in the thief’s office, about which the thief claimed to know, helped to expose this crime. Despite the caution of the long finger, trying to cover the crime committed with a piece of paper for official notification of the arrest of offenders. And while still approaching the ajar door of the mentioned office, behind which the guards were buzzing.

According to the criminal order issued by Klaipėda District Court, Klaipėda Chamber Judge Ingrida Krušienė, to Indre S., who had stolen herself, she was tempted by the wallet of the owner of the office, who allowed her to use his office computer, which was lying on his desk, with a 100-euro bill sticking out of it. At that time, the owner of the wallet had gone to other premises to check the sobriety of the offenders brought by this patrol.

Is it possible to steal after being injured?

Not resisting the mentioned temptation, Indrė S. later justified herself that she thought this wallet belonged to one of the presented persons. And her financial situation after taking the loan is difficult. Although, according to the portal kauno.diena.lt, the officer stole herself just five days after receiving her salary.

Covering up the crime she was committing and her bodies, she deftly stuffed the bills she found in her purse into her uniform pants pocket. And, according to the video, this happened right before another colleague of the owner of the wallet appeared in the office, with whom the thief, leaving the scene of the crime, passed through the doorway.

Associative E. Ovcharenko/BNS photo.

In the same record, it is also recorded that soon the owner of the wallet himself returned to the office and took his wallet lying on the table. However, according to the already mentioned criminal order, he found out that he was robbed only a few hours later. And then, after reviewing the recordings of the video camera installed in the office with a colleague, it turned out that he was robbed by the mentioned patrol, whose name he did not know.

This was found out by the Kaunas County officials of the Immunity Board of the Police Department, to whom the thief voluntarily returned her loot the same evening, only then, according to her, when she found out that she had stolen 215 euros from her colleague’s wallet.

Punishment is given, it is close to the mildest

Indrei S. was charged with theft of someone else’s property of small value, which is considered a criminal offense. According to the Criminal Code, responsibility for the above-mentioned criminal offense is provided only if the victim makes a statement. Four days later, the stolen person, who was recognized as such, asked to punish the thief in accordance with the law. Although he did not file any civil lawsuit against her, he only wanted to get his money back.

Since Indrė S. admitted his guilt and regretted his act, this pre-trial investigation was completed in a simplified manner. Darius Valkavičius, the prosecutor of the Organized Crime and Corruption Investigation Department of the Kaunas District Prosecutor’s Office who led him, applied to the court with a statement on the termination of the process by a court criminal order, proposing to fine the officer who stole 1,500 euros, which she agreed to.

It remains to be reminded that the fine for the said misdemeanor is the second most severe punishment. For the theft of someone else’s property of small value, there are public works to which the accused must agree, or a fine, or restriction of freedom, or arrest from ten to 45 days.

However, since Indrė S. admitted her guilt, the fine proposed by the prosecutor was reduced by a third – to 1 thousand. euros. When awarding it, judge I. Krušienė stated that the monetary amount with which the officer who had stolen was punished was lower than the average fine. But this is enough to punish Indre S. for the crime committed, taking into account her biography and other circumstances.

Legal subtleties

The mentioned 1 thousand The officer who stole the euro fine is obliged to pay it within ten months from the entry into force of this criminal order, because she can still, after changing her mind that she does not agree with such a punishment, ask for a court hearing to be held, in which she would also participate.

The judge made the above-mentioned decision on sentencing Indrei S. without the presence of either the accused or the prosecutor. And this one was published on April 30. And the deadline for appealing a criminal order is 14 days. Therefore, this criminal order has not yet come into force. However, the General Prosecutor’s Office hastened to report this scandal to the Kaunas Police, without waiting for the decision of the convicted person.

According to the portal kauno.diena.lt, Indrė S. was dismissed from police service at the end of April. But even before the court decided what kind of punishment she deserved.

And the case of this Kaunas policewoman was examined not by Kaunas, but by Klaipėda district court – not because the thief was an officer, but because of the uneven workload of the courts. When appointing it to the Klaipėda court, it was based on the ruling of the chairman of the Court of Appeal that such cases can be transferred to another court, despite the fact that the crime was committed outside its territory.