[ad_1]
A scandalous case is being examined in the Klaipėda Chamber of the Regional Regional Court. The prosecutor Aivaras Velutis, who supervised the work of the agents of the Special Investigation Service (STT), was himself supervised by this service. The case mentions that a well-known prosecutor advised a person seeking to avoid criminal liability.
Damage to the name of the prosecutor’s office
A. Velutis The position of prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Corruption Investigation Division (ONKTS) of the Klaipėda Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office was lost in October last year.
The Attorney General Evaldas Pašilis made the decision to impose an official sanction on A. Velučius after receiving the conclusion of the official inspection carried out in the Internal Investigation Division.
The conclusion indicates that A. Velutis, as a prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Corruption Investigation Division of the Klaipėda Regional Prosecutor’s Office, systematically provided qualified legal advice to interested persons using specific professional knowledge, name, undermined trust and discredited the authority of the prosecution.
Following this decision, A. Velučius was offered the post of prosecutor at Visaginas, but later secured a post at the Klaipėda District Prosecutor’s Office. So he avoided the deportation officer type.
Why did you listen?
Dissatisfied with such management decision, A. Velutis requested the court to conclude the official inspection and seeks to be reinstated in his previous position.
A fundamental dispute broke out in the courtroom: A. Velutis raises the question, on what basis did STT listen to their conversations?
It turns out that the STT has been listening to the prosecutor’s telephone conversations for some time. A. Velutis himself does not know exactly what information was collected and since when it was collected, so he asks the Attorney General’s Office and the STT to publish the data collected before 2018. May 28
Prosecutors are not saints.
The only idea that seems to have tormented the lawyer so far is why was he kidnapped by the STT?
“What documents did the STT become the basis for my monitoring? As a prosecutor, I control the STT myself. What data showed my personal interest in supporting the state’s indictment?” – Asked A. Velutis in court, demanding to declassify the material of the criminal intelligence case.
Part of the data in this case was provided to A. Velučius for information, but the lawyer was skeptical.
“He presented one part, three or four sheets,” the man told the court.
Judge Vida Stonkuvienė, who is examining the case, agreed to A. Velutis’ request to provide more information on this case.
Prosecutors are not saints
It is not clear whether A. Velutis will receive an answer to his tortuous question. The STT and the Attorney General’s Office do not always agree to publicize criminal intelligence cases in their entirety.
“It’s about putting some data in the court to help make the right decision. In general, the STT followed me. Prosecutors are not saints. And they can do bad things. The Special Investigation Service is there to explain the wrong things. . But when you do, you must act strictly in accordance with the prescribed laws. There can be no free-spirit derivations, tensions, visions of what does not exist, just to justify the persecution of a person. Because we are talking about private life. of a person. “, explained A. Velutis.
He stressed that his quest to discover who and why he chose to follow him was a quest for truth of an almost higher nature.
Investigated upon receiving information
The troubling question by A. Velučius “why” was also asked at the Attorney General’s Office when issuing a finding on the demotion.
The question about the reason for the request for sanction to listen to the conversations of A. Velutis was answered and the journalists were answered very succinctly, reliable and indisputable data were obtained, so the investigation was initiated.
By the way, the requests to apply the measures provided for in the Criminal Intelligence Law against this lawyer were not satisfied by the Klaipėda courts, but by the Vilnius and Kaunas courts.
The issue that afflicts A. Velelu, which led to the initiation of a criminal intelligence process against him, led the lawyer to another judicial interpretation.
In the reinstatement process, the prosecutor shared his public hearing on one of the cases before him. In his speech, the prosecutor pretended to be suspicious of a company and allegedly high links between the STT Klaipėda Board leadership.
The prosecutor soon received a lawsuit from a Palanga-based company for the facts mentioned in the hearing of his case.
Martynas Vainorius, the former editor of the newspaper “Vakarų ekspresas”, who carefully transcribed the speeches of A. Velutis, will also be invited to this process as a third person. It seems that by making known the deliberations of A. Velutis.
There is a trace of slander in history
With whom Prosecutor A. Velutis contacts or befriends became clear after the prosecutor’s telephone conversations began to be recorded.
The case mentions several episodes that raised questions for law enforcement.
In the conversations recorded by STT, it is clear how and what consultations A. Velutis provided. They are mentioned by the Prosecutor’s Office in its report on the demotion of this prosecutor.
Cases: A. Velutis supported the State’s accusation in several outstanding cases. / Photo by Vytautas Liaudanskis
In general terms, A. Velutis has been recorded to consult with the forces of order to people with problems. If it is ethical for the prosecutor to do so, it has already been evaluated by the direction of this lawyer.
A. Velutis was consulted by an old friend from his course. The man explained that he was an expert in civil law and that his help was allegedly requested by a man at risk of criminal responsibility.
Dinaidas Petras Kančius from Vilnius needed this help. Man 2018 In the fall of 2006, he received a call from the officials of the Klaip Jefeda Police Chief Commissariat regarding the pre-trial investigation initiated for defamation.
A Vilnius resident humiliated and belittled the author of a post in the comment section of the klaipeda.diena.lt portal.
The man repressed any comments that went beyond the limits of decency after the post about Darius Jasaitis, the mayor of Neringa, and people close to the mayor who work in the municipality and municipal companies.
The first speeches of D. Kančius were recorded in 2018 in September, but also commented in October. Following other posts related to Neringa, the man also left disgusting comments. Some seem to have been written by him as soon as he got to work.
The man humiliated not only the journalist of the daily “Klaipeda”, but also a member of the Council of Neringa.
Threatened with conviction
The police determined that the police, who wrote obscene comments, had launched an investigation under article 154 of the Penal Code. the second part.
Soon forensic scientists visited the premises of the company dedicated to the sale of garden and garden tools in Vilnius. The police carried out a search and took a tool to commit the crime: a computer.
This man faced a fine, arrest or prison of up to two years. Vilnius was quick to find ways to reconcile.
The man needed advice on how to avoid criminal liability. An acquaintance from Vilnius advised to contact A. Velutis and claimed that his old scientist friend really knew criminal law.
According to the sources, A. Velutis assured the commentator that bail requests prepared for his court are usually satisfied in nine out of ten cases, so the man is guaranteed to avoid criminal liability.
Did this phrase make law enforcement suspect that A. Velutis had participated in such consultations on a regular basis or at least for some time?
The comment on A. Velutis published by the Attorney General’s Office stated: “He systematically provided qualified legal advice to certain interested persons.”
Steponas Vasilecas, who was summoned to testify against D. Kančius in court, stated that A. Velutis had sent the documents to his client. The court will assess whether it was template material, as stated by the witness.
None of the graduates had the idea that they were doing something illegal or unethical. On the contrary, A. Velutis called an old friend from science and asked him about the affairs of D. Kančius.
The fundamental question of whether A. Velutis was bothered by legal inquiries from strangers for compensation remains unanswered.
The prosecutor himself affirms in the process that he did not do anything illegal and, of course, did not receive money for consultations.
Perhaps it is clear to the Public Ministry that all the material from the hearing has been made public and, if so, for what amount and, if so, what should it have given you in vain?
To witnesses – a colleague
Ruslan Ušinskas, another well-known prosecutor for the port city, testified in this case that the deal was not about money or any kind of remuneration, but about who would take the key made by the captain at a gas station.
A fellow prosecutor cited as a witness persuaded the court that the STT had received attention only because it had asked A. Velutis to take a key from a gas station near Klaipėda and brought up a recorded correspondence on the Facebook Messenger chat application.
The ONKTS prosecutor stated that he had not taken any illegal action, and the agents who overheard the conversations confused everything and drew the wrong conclusions.
In all these circumstances, the court of first instance declared an indefinite postponement of this trial.
It is not clear whether the STT and the Attorney General’s Office will provide all the prosecutor’s follow-up material.
The CC explained: you can hear
In April last year, the Constitutional Court (CC) held that the legal regulation related to the use of criminal intelligence information for the investigation of official misconduct related to corruption is not in conflict with the Constitution.
It is recognized that the provision of article 19 (3) of the Criminal Intelligence Law (CRI) “criminal intelligence on a criminal act of a corrupt nature may, with the consent of the prosecutor, be declassified and used in investigations <...> misconduct “is not in conflict with the Constitution.
The CC ruling clarifies that an official (civil servant) about whom information was secretly collected in accordance with the procedure established by the LCI, using said information to investigate his crime of corruption, has the right to go to the court (judge) to be refers to this paragraph. raise issues of legality, necessity and proportionality in the use of classified information and question the admissibility of such information as evidence.
The CC also noted in the ruling that a person, official (official) who has committed a criminal act or other illicit act, including a minor crime, committed or otherwise violated the interests protected by law or harmed people, the society or the state, cannot and cannot wait for your Private life will be protected in the same way as people who do not break the law or act in the public interest.
[ad_2]
