[ad_1]
Corruption investigations at Panevėžys Hospital started in 2015. Former chief Ivan Doros still mentions court thresholds for bribery and other crimes.
During the corruption investigation, the police also stumbled upon a public procurement, the technical specification of which was prepared by R. Tatoris.
The Financial Crime Investigation Service (FNTT), in cooperation with the Special Investigation Service (STT), discovered that the Hospital’s Deputy Director, in organizing public procurement, had made economically unprofitable decisions and therefore committed a crime under Article 229 of CC. – breach of official duties.
Authorities accused R.Tatoris of deliberately allowing only one manufacturer to participate in the tender when purchasing medical equipment. However, these strong accusations, which were announced by the media, collapsed in court.
Solutions are good for the hospital.
The court found that R. Tator prepared the technical specification for the medical equipment in consultation with hospital doctors, as well as carefully compiled information on the best prices on the market.
“Witnesses have confirmed that the equipment purchased is useful, serves the hospital and its patients, and the cost of purchasing it has already been worth it, as health insurance funds pay for them during the proceedings,” the court ruled.
Furthermore, the decision to buy the equipment was not even made by R.Tatoris himself, but was unanimously decided by the Public Procurement Commission, but only he was accused.
“R.Tatoris, as one of the members of the procurement commission, generally lacks any basis for the decisions made by the commission. The court stated that no evidence had been collected that the hospital had suffered material damage in the case under review in general, and even more than R. Tator had done, “the court ruled.
Police also tried to explain that R. Tator was in contact with the winning company, although he had reviewed his correspondence and calls and found no evidence to back him up.
Received little compensation
After the acquittal, R. Tatoris entered a counterattack: he went to court for illegal actions by officials and the prosecutor and demanded that he be compensated 50,000. Non-pecuniary damage.
According to him, the unfounded allegations damaged not only reputation but also health. During a lengthy investigation, his freedom was restricted: he was not allowed to leave the country.
The Vilnius Regional Court partially satisfied R. Tatorius’s claim with the already effective trial, but evaluated the damage caused due to the unreasonable persecution of the officers in total by 4.5 thousand. It also ordered the accused to pay the costs.
“The FNTT recognizes, in principle, that its officials do not follow the logic in their service, do not take into account the fundamental economic and commercial principles, and do not elaborate on the data they collect on the basis of human coercion, which is fully online with unwarranted negligence and carelessness. ” R.Tatoris.
It is true that the prosecutor’s office and the FNTT did their best to demonstrate that he had done nothing wrong and that the man charged without guilt did not deserve any harm. However, this failed.
Photo by Sigismund Gedvila / 15min / Financial Crime Investigation Service
According to the court, even during the investigation, officials and the prosecutor had the opportunity to discover that R. Tator had not committed any crime.
“During the pre-trial investigation it was known that R. Tator was one of the three members of the acquisitions commission, it should have been known that the decisions in the commission are made by majority, but therefore unanimously in the presence of said testimony of witnesses and other data collected during the pre-trial investigation, It is clear that the suspicion and the accusation against the plaintiff have no factual basis, “the court stated.
According to the panel of judges, the police started the prosecution without any data that would allow suspecting the alleged crimes.
Subsequently, in the absence of direct evidence of the applicant’s guilt in committing the crime of which he was accused, the pre-trial investigation was not terminated and the accusation was adopted and the case referred to the court. Such actions by pretrial investigation officers, prosecutors, in the opinion of the panel of judges, are inconsistent with due diligence and due diligence requirements, therefore, despite the legality of individual actions taken during the pretrial investigation. , must be considered illegal ”, decided the judges.
[ad_2]
