Even for three years, the officers persecuted the parish priest: they counted not only the victims of the parishioners.

“This case is an example of how the reputation of a famous person can be degraded due to the actions of unskilled but stubborn officials,” said Romualdas Mikliušas, a well-known Vilnius lawyer who represented the interests of the priest in court, not even tried to wrap the words in cotton.

According to him, the judges of the Panevėžys Regional Court, who examined the criminal case of S. Filipavičius on appeal, clearly stated without curtains that the Lithuanian police and the court of first instance did not even have the right to interfere in the process. parish affairs.

Still on July 31 of last year. The Anykščiai Chamber of the Utena District Court found S. Filipavičius guilty of negligent management of the parish accounts and of the management of the farm that belonged to him as a farmer; therefore, the court imposed a fine of MGL 80 (EUR 3,012) on the priest.

In its judgment, the Court of First Instance considered that Mr Filipavičius had fraudulently kept the accounts of his farm, since it was completely impossible to establish the period from 2003 to 2017. S. Filipavičius the agricultural activities, assets, liabilities, farmer size and structure; that he did not keep agricultural accounts, did not record the economic transactions that were carried out and did not present all the accounting documents necessary for the investigation.

In addition, S. Filipavičius was convicted in Anykščiai for negligent management of Troškūnai St. Trinity Parish accounting, which is not related to the receipt of income from economic-commercial activities, but from the cash of the believers for religious services and fees .

Prosecutors also accused the cleric of illegally lending money to individuals and corporations, who had received nearly $ 14,000 in loans. 376 EUR, but did not pay mandatory taxes to the state – 376 EUR. The court acquitted S. Filipavičius, the prosecutors agreed with this position of the court and did not appeal the verdict.

However, S. Filipavičius and the lawyers representing him filed a complaint against the judgment of the Anykščiai Court, which did not reflect reality.

They did not agree with the statements made in the judgment of the court of first instance and pointed out that the court not only misjudged the data provided by the prosecutors, misapplied criminal law, violated the presumption of innocence and the principle of justice.

The lawyers’ complaint indicated that the accounts of the estate and parish of S. Filipavičius were investigated by three experts, but the court relied solely on the opinion of a specialist from the Financial Crimes Investigation Service (FNTT), with whom the prosecutors made the accusation. . At the time, the findings of the other two auditors, who had examined the accounts in more detail, were not of interest to law enforcement, especially according to the lawyers.

At that time, the Anykščiai court stated that in 2018. During the search of S. Filipavičius’s house in June 2010, no agricultural accounting documents for 2010-2017 were found, so it was decided that he did not complete his farm diary. Nor was a magazine found listing the sacrifices collected from parishioners in the church. S. Filipavičius presented these documents during the trial of the criminal case, but the court ruled that they were false documents, because the annotations on them were completed with the same pen.

The judges of the Panevėžys Regional Court, who analyzed the data in a criminal case on appeal, came to a different conclusion: “This in no way justifies the fact that the recordings were made on time, that is, only after the start of the pre-investigation of the trial “.

According to the Panevėžys judges who acquitted S. Filipavičius, the Anykščiai court unreasonably stated that it was not possible to determine the period 2003-2017 at all. The size and structure of the agricultural activities, assets and liabilities of the S. Filipavičius farmer, as “he did not keep agricultural accounts, did not record the economic operations that took place and did not submit all the accounting documents necessary for the investigation.”

The court that acquitted the acquittal noted that S. Filipavičius had never refused to provide the necessary documents and that he had provided a copy of the income and expense log during further questioning. Other documents were taken at the discretion of the officers during the search.

“Although not all of the farm’s accounting documents were found and taken during the search, this does not mean that such documents did not exist at all and that the farm’s accounting was not kept,” said the acquittal.

The court also stated that there were no circumstances to support the district court’s conclusion that the presented farm accounting documents were not completed in a timely manner: this in no way justifies the late recording. “

Eliminating the charges against the cleric for the negligence of Troškūnai St. The court took note of the accounting of Trinity Parish, which is not related to the receipt of income for economic-commercial activities, but to the cash of the believers for services and fees religious: “Law on Accounting, Accounting and Financial Reporting of Non-Profit Organizations Limited Liability Legal Entities and filing rules do not apply to activities related to church religious services, that is, receiving cash of believers.

Therefore, according to the court, the accusation of S. Filipavičius for violating the provisions of these legal acts was completely unfounded.

The Agreement between the Republic of Lithuania and the Holy See on the rights of the Catholic Church and the State establishes that churches, chapels and other sacred buildings used for pastoral, charitable, social, educational and cultural purposes are not subject to state taxes; the treaty also establishes that the state does not tax voluntary donations to the church and donations for its pastoral, educational and charitable activities ”, according to the court of appeals, under the current legal framework, the church.

S. Filipavičius had sent a magazine indicating the funds received from the parishioners during the judicial process, when the Bishop of Panevėžys Linas Vodopjanovas granted him such a right. He had indicated to law enforcement that he had no claim against the Troškūnai pastor, and if he had, those disputes would be resolved in an ecclesiastical court in accordance with canon law.

According to the court, law enforcement agencies did not even have the right to prosecute Filipavičius for this crime.

However, since the clergyman presented the parish documents, according to the Panevėžys Regional Court, they confirmed that the accounting was carried out in an orderly and non-negligent manner, as the prosecutors who supported the state prosecution and the Anykščiai Court claim.

The verdict rendered by the Panevėžys Regional Court entered into force as soon as it was rendered, but prosecutors will still have the right to appeal it on cassation to the Lithuanian Supreme Court.

Lawyer R. Mikliušas defending Pastor Troškūnai in court Delphi he admitted that the case of S. Filipavičius probably perfectly reveals how “the reputation of a famous person can be degraded due to the actions of unskilled but stubborn officials.”

“When I intervened in this case and read it, the first thought that came to mind was: why is it so desirable to take S. Filipavičius to court and convict him, even though there is no legal basis for it? – said R Mikliušas. – It was also surprising that in this case an unusually gigantic job was done to prosecute S. Filipavičius at any cost: many counter-inspections were carried out, inquiries were sent to foreign banks, etc. The prosecution was also based on the biased conclusions of less qualified specialists who did not even know about St. The existence of the Treaty of Throne and Lithuania! Due to these circumstances, the defense had to turn to highly qualified specialists: the auditor A. Kapitanov and Č. Maculevičius, who presented his findings to the court.Even after these extremely clear findings, the district court was unable to assess the situation properly and had to appeal to an appellate court. lations “.

According to the lawyer, officers who illegally persecuted a cleric should be concerned not only with his qualifications.

“I think opponents should learn another lesson from this case: understand that it is not possible to comment on the case in a biased way until the court decision has come into force,” emphasized R. Mikliušas.