[ad_1]
The court began hearing this case on appeal after K. Strupas appealed against the verdict handed down by the Vilnius City District Court in March, for which he was found guilty and sentenced to 5,000. a fine of EUR.
By the way, the courts of both instances heard this resounding case behind closed doors for reasons of protection of the personal data of the patient in court. However, today the final verdict was made public, immediately effective.
Previously, K. Strupas was convicted of accepting an unspecified amount of bribery from a patient for the operation. It was the uncertainty about the size of the bribe that led to the outcome of the case: the video made in secret did not see what kind of bill could have been given to the doctor.
The patient who gave the bribe was also found guilty in the case, the court had awarded her 4.5 thousand. a fine of EUR. He also appealed against that court decision.
VIDEO: In the bribery case, the court acquitted K. Strupa and his patient
At that time, the Vilnius Regional Court acquitted both K. Strupa and his patient with a new sentence without proving that the woman could give and the doctor could accept a bribe.
As the chairman of the panel of judges who heard the case said, the prosecutors relied on two secretly recorded episodes. In one case, an envelope was delivered, in another case, paper. The court lacked conclusive evidence that at least once a doctor could have received a specific amount of money from a patient.
According to judge Gintaras Dzedulionis, although there was communication between the defendants, there is no evidence in the case that they had agreed to a reward or that the patient had given a bribe.
“The communication took place, the communication was recorded, a conversation was recorded, two cases were recorded, in one case they delivered an envelope, in another case they delivered some paper,” said G. Dzedulionis.
According to him, the defendants stated that the envelope contained information on the patient’s condition, and on the leaflet was written the name and address of the cafe belonging to the patient to whom he wanted to invite K. Strupa. These positions of the accused were not refuted either by the file or by the experts.
“Whatever paper was not found there, the expert concluded that there was no objective data on whether it was a banknote or not,” the judge said.
According to G. Dzedulionis, the expert found the paper to be greenish, but that is not enough for you to assume it was money, as the prosecutors did.
“The presumption that it was a bank note, the presumption that it was a bank note and the presumption that it was a monetary reward,” explained the judge.
He stressed that neither the contents of the envelope nor the paper had been determined and that the conviction could not be based on presumptions.
[ad_2]
