[ad_1]
R. Kurlianskis, who began presenting evidence in court on Wednesday, was surprised by the statement that 90,000. Euros, which the police call a bribe, were allocated to E. Masiulis’ political activities.
“Yes, it was 90 thousand. To finance the political activities and the electoral campaign of Eligijus Masiulis. And this is absolutely true and has nothing to do with the legislative processes described by the prosecutor. And even more: this is not the first nor the last time I financed Eligijus Masiulis’ political activities, I partly financed them, “he said in court.
R. Kurlianskis emphasized that the last time had already been discussed in court proceedings, taking into account the case announced by prosecutor Justas Laucius at the court hearing in February 2019, that R. Kurlianskis to E. Masiulis, with whom couldn’t even communicate, transferred 10 thousand. euros
R. Kurlianskis said Wednesday it was a loan that E. Masiulis used for the electoral deposit in the 2019 municipal elections.
The goal is for E. Masiulis to become Prime Minister
Speaking of about 90 thousand. Former MG Vice President Baltic emphasized that it is no longer possible to say legally or illegally that E. Masiulis had used them for the 2016 Seimas elections.
“It just caught our eye then. My goal was to ensure that the Liberal Movement, which is in line with my political views, is in line with the political views of business, is prone to reform, becomes a leading political force, E. Masiulis becomes the Prime Minister, and in 10-15 years, the President of Lithuania spoke.
Sigismund Gedvila photo / 15min / Raimondas Kurlianskis
However, he also emphasized here that this “does not eliminate the issue of real estate”, taking into account that it does not burn the version of E. Masiulis that 90 thousand. It was a loan for him, which he and his ex-wife’s relatives intended to invest in real estate in Nida.
“E. Masiulis’s determination to take on personal obligations to borrow was fascinating, because it meant a lot of self-confidence, faith in his political strength, faith in his ideas. He was fascinated by this. The intentions were to do everything only legally,” R. Kurlianskis said.
He promises that the explanation will be logical.
What does this mean? Can an investment in a future prime minister be a loan at the same time? Or perhaps R. Kurlianskis is trying to say that E. Masiulis would have been a better politician if he had won the investment?
R. Kurlianskis said that he would explain everything later and promised that there would be no lack of logic in that explanation.
“I will speak later in a separate episode,” he said.
During the break from the hearing, R. Kurlianskis declined to explain her statement, saying the court must hear it first. He assured once again that this did not interfere with E. Masiulis’s version, and E. Masiulis himself did not comment on it, urging that the testimony of R. Kurlianskis be continued. He rejected the question of whether such a statement was a surprise to him, and said that no one surprised him or surprised him.
R. Kurlianskis also presented evidence in court in August 2018. He claimed that he had loaned E. Masasi 90,000. euros
“90 thousand. I personally lent 1 million euros to E. Masiulis”, R. Kurlianskis then told the panel of three judges. He said he was not interested in who the money would be used for, and that he did not care.
R. Merkevičius: objections show that none can be trusted
Remigijus Merkevičius, Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Vilnius University. 15 minutes On Thursday, he considered that perhaps it was not the stage of the procedure that R. Kurlianskis and E. Masiulis should start facing each other.
If one says a loan and the other says no, it is not a loan here, and I gave it that way, it no longer sounds.
“It is possible to guess that I will probably say that I did not give that money to Masiulis as a person and that it was not related to any objective, desire or interest, but that E. Masiulis already had that money or did not take it into account, where it was used . “, – considered the lawyer.
Photo by Josvydas Elinskas / 15min / Lawyer Remigijus Merkevičius
He emphasized that until now, after R. Kurlianskis said A, but did not say B, it is difficult to consider his intentions.
“If one says the loan and the other says no, it is not the loan here, and I gave it that way, it doesn’t sound like that,” emphasized the interlocutor.
R.Merkevičius considered that R.Kurlianskis may not have rejected the loan version, explaining that E.Masiulis could use the money for the party in some way.
Be that as it may, in the middle of a test to say something of surprise, which generates more doubts, already from the point of view of the defense, it doesn’t seem like much. So far, it is difficult to assess the whole situation. I would like to hear the whole story. Then it would be possible to see what it tells us, “said the criminal law expert.
However, he emphasized that defense theory says that the sooner the defendant has a clear defense position, the more consistently it will develop during the trial, the more compelling, reasonable, and high-quality it will be.
“And taking turns, giving testimonies, not knowing the story you travel to court does not add credibility and persuasion,” he said.
According to the lawyer, if the facts of the case are such that it appears that there was no crime, it is better that the accused follow a version.
“So nobody did anything wrong,” he added. – The conflict between them shows that neither is likely to be reliable. This says that the prosecutor and the court will probably have to rely on some other evidence than their testimony, because the constantly changing testimony is not trustworthy. “
What other evidence in this case, R. Merkevičius stated that he did not know, but if the defendant’s versions differ, the court will have to rely on something that has a more objective basis.
However, the interlocutor repeatedly emphasized that it is difficult to answer the questions at this stage and assured that other actions by R. Kurlianskis will show more.
“For now, that saying may only be a pursuit of sensations, etc. It can be anything ”, assured the legal expert.
According to him, it is interesting how R. Kurlianskis’ lawyers will legally explain this story.
“Because it says I invested in a person as prime minister … The question is, did you have expectations of something that might be corrupt, but could also be very uncorrupted, altruistic.” Can be anything. On the other hand, there are regulations on the financing of political parties and political campaigns, clear structures, transparency is finally there.
Well, if everyone now invests in someone else some secret money hoping or not expecting something, will there be a bit of chaos? I wonder what legal dress your explanation will put all those facts into. Then it would be possible to evaluate and guess what will happen. And so far I would say nothing, so far more questions than answers, “he said.
V. Bužinskas: the safety of the accused himself – first
Experienced criminal lawyer Valdemaras Bužinskas 15 minutes agreed that very often in cases it happens that the versions of the accused begin to differ and turn against each other.
The interlocutor emphasized that he did not participate in a case of political corruption, so it would be unethical to speak about this case, but he shared his thoughts on how it happens in criminal cases.
Vidmantas Balkūnas photo / 15min photo / Lawyer Valdemaras Bužinskas
“It just came to our attention then. Everyone has their own interests. First, everyone’s interest is their own safety. Even if the versions are discussed, sooner or later, as a rule, a return to the safety of the same person that you give priority to, ”he said.
V. Bužinskas said he had seen many of those situations.
“Not surprisingly, the process establishes that the accused is not responsible for the accuracy of his testimony. He has the right to give evidence, he may not do so. He can give a testimony that is favorable to him,” he emphasized.
What if the testimony of the same defendant differs? How do the judges see this?
“We professionals are used to it. Therefore, there should be no preconceptions in any case. And this is understandable for everyone, because personal safety and personal interest come first. It is always very difficult to reconcile it with the collective and, apparently, it is not always necessary ”, he emphasized.
[ad_2]
