[ad_1]
The Lithuanian Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the convicted person and his lawyer, who sought to acquit almost 5 thousand. embezzled euro. However, J. Taraškevičiūtė failed to rehabilitate in the eyes of his former colleagues and the public.
After summarizing the sentences according to four articles of the Penal Code, J. Taraškevičiūtė was fined with a final fine of 250 MSL (EUR 12,500). A thousand were immediately confiscated from the woman. EUR, more than 3.5 thousand. One million euros was awarded to him in favor of the Vilnius police station and compensation for the damage caused to the victim.
The truth did not come out immediately
This story dates back to 2016, when J. Taraškevičiūtė was still working as the lead police investigator at the 1st Police Station in Vilnius. During a pre-trial investigation, several items and 4,456 euros were confiscated from the suspect during a search.
Registered officers put the money in an envelope and sealed it. This envelope fell into the hands of J. Taraškevičiūtė. The envelope with the money had to be delivered to the police deposit. The investigator was to sign documents identifying who and where specifically are being held in custody.
The official had 3 business days to resolve the formalities, but J. Taraškevičiūtė had another plan in mind, which began to shine in the light of more than six months. Then, in court, the person from whom the money was temporarily taken demanded its return.
Prosecutors appealed to J. Taraškevičiūtė, but were interrupted because she had not had time to resolve those formalities until now. In court it became clear that J. Taraškevičiūtė had embezzled not only money, but also items taken from suspects in similar circumstances.
For example, the suspect’s car keys were found at J. Taraškevičiūtė’s office. His phone was also there. Money was also found during a search of his home. He also stole only 133 euros from a suspect.
Appeal
J. Taraškevičiūtė’s lawyer, Marius Monkevičius, stated in court that it is not disputed that his representative conducted a pre-trial investigation and did not turn over the money seized for custody on time. But, according to the lawyer, his client has not been shown to have misappropriated that money and committed other criminal acts.
It was appealed that J. Taraškevičiūtė worked in a separate office, which was not closed. So when police investigators were not at work, anyone could enter his office. This was an attempt to avoid blaming someone for a colleague who allegedly took the money.
The case where the money was placed was said not to fit in the safe installed in the office due to the large volume, so it remained unlocked.
“Anyone who entered J. Taraškevičiūtė’s office would be able to access this pre-trial investigation file without hindrance. These circumstances make it possible to establish objectively that the EUR 4 456 taken from the suspect in the pre-trial investigation file may have disappeared in other circumstances, as other persons also had access to him. The circumstances indicated raise reasonable doubts that only J. Taraškevičiūtė can appropriate the money, ”the lawyer explained to the court.
The fact that the house of J. Taraškevičiūtė was found with objects confiscated from the suspects, the lawyer explained as a human error. After learning of his expulsion from the office, J. Taraškevičiūtė collected the items in the office and accidentally took what did not belong to him. However, the sentencing court rejected such arguments as unfounded.
[ad_2]
