[ad_1]
The appeal seeks to overturn the Vilnius Regional Court verdict of April 15 and refer the case to the court of first instance or overturn the acquittal part of the sentence and convict the accused.
It is also requested to examine the evidence in the case, question the expert, listen to the audio recordings, carry out an additional linguistic examination and carry out other procedural actions.
According to the prosecutor’s office, the Vilnius Regional Court, in examining the case, went beyond the scope of the prosecution, did not thoroughly examine the main evidence in the case, did not thoroughly examine the relevant circumstances of the case, and drew incorrect conclusions.
The prosecutor who filed the complaint proposes to R. Paksas a conditional sentence of three years and two months in prison, G. Vainauskas is asked for a conditional sentence of three years and 26 thousand in prison. a fine of EUR. AJ Zabulis is expected to receive 24,000. a fine of EUR.
According to the data of the case, R. Paksas and G. Vainauskas in 2015 coincided in 15 thousand. Euro bribery for the politician’s promise to influence the building inspector to obtain permission to use the shop in Prienai. They denied their guilt. G. Vainauskas stated that he was conducting a journalistic investigation and R. Paksas stated that the case was aimed at removing him from politics.
In the episode about AJ Zabulis, law enforcement officials suspected that G. Vainauskas had accepted a bribe from a businessman for promising to use his influence to get the Financial Crimes Investigation Service to end the investigation into the fraudulent absorption of aid from the company. European Union by the renewable energy and high-tech company BOD Group. The fraud investigation is over.
According to prosecutors, AJ Zabulis acted in the interest of Vidod Janulevičius, director of the BOD Group, and was suspected in the aforementioned fraud investigation.
On April 15, the Vilnius Regional Court, upon hearing the case, ruled that the defendants had not committed any act that showed signs of crime or fault.
This court considered that it could not be unequivocally and unequivocally concluded from the data of the case that during the conversation with R. Paksas, G. Vainauskas, by offering, promising or agreeing to give a high value bribe, intended to influence R. Paksas before the State Inspectorate for Spatial Planning and Construction. and his servants.
Furthermore, the court stated that it was not possible to draw an unequivocal and unequivocal conclusion that during the conversation with G. Vainauskas AJ Zabulis, by offering and agreeing to give a high-value bribe, was seeking to influence G. Vainauskas to the Crime Investigation Service Financiers, and G. Vainauskas with such a proposal from AJ Zabulis agreed.
It is not allowed to publish, quote or reproduce the information of the BNS news agency in the media and on the Internet without the written consent of the UAB “BNS”.
[ad_2]
