Titulinis

Šiemetinio 43-iojo Tarptautinio ekonominių nusikaltimų simpoziumo tema buvo „Turto susigrąžinimas ir teisinės valstybės principas – nusikalstamos veiklos pelno atėmimas: nuo retorikos prie realių rezultatų“ (angl. „Asset Recovery and the Rule of Law - Taking the profit out of crime – from rhetoric to results“). Džiaugiamės, kad šios milžiniškos konferencijos, vykusios rugpjūčio 23–30 dienomis Kembridžo universitete ir pritraukusios per 600 ekspertų iš viso pasaulio, rengėjų sąraše įrašytas ir Lietuvos socialinių mokslų centro Teisės institutas. Šiame renginyje pranešimus skaitė du Teisės instituto mokslininkai – dr. Ingrida Kerušauskaitė-Palmer ir dr. Skirmantas Bikelis. Be to, dr. I. Kerušauskaitė-Palmer prisidėjo ir prie simpoziumo organizavimo.

Dr. I. Kerušauskaitė-Palmer, LSMC Teisės instituto ir Kembridžo universiteto Jėzaus koledžo vyresnioji mokslo darbuotoja, šiais metais koordinavo dviejų dienų alternatyviąją programą „Geopolitinė strateginė korupcija ir neteisėti finansiniai srautai – globojant Vystymosi studijų centrui“ (angl. „Geopolitical strategic corruption and illicit finance - Under the auspices of the Centre of Development Studies“). Ingrida tarė įžangos žodžius ir moderavo pirmas sesijas abi programos dienas – pristatė pagrindines sąvokas, strateginės korupcijos priemones, metodus ir apraiškas bei aptarė pagrindinius iššūkius ir klausimus, kuriuos nagrinėja akademinė literatūra, o paskutinę dieną apibendrino visą programą. Taip pat tyrėja perskaitė tris pranešimus, du iš jų – plenarinėse simpoziumo sesijose.  Pirmajame pranešime sesijoje „Ką turėtume daryti su susigrąžintais pinigais ir ką galime su jais daryti?“ (angl. „What should we do and what can we do with the money we recover?“) dr. Ingrida Kerušauskaitė-Palmer pristatė knygos skyrių, kurį parašė kartu su dr. Skirmantu Bikeliu, apie konfiskuoto turto pakartotinį panaudojimą (angl. asset reuse). Ingrida aptarė jos ir Skirmanto sukurtą modelį, kaip jie kategorizuoja atgauto turto panaudojimą socialiniams ir administraciniams tikslams. Antrajame pranešime sesijoje „Plenarinis praktinis seminaras Nr. 48 – ką tai reiškia šiuolaikiniame pasaulyje?“ (angl. Plenary Workshop 48 –  what does it mean in the modern world?") Ingrida kalbėjo apie korupciją ir socialines normas bei skirtumą tarp tapatybinio ir „vienkartinio“ korupcijos suvokimo. Paskutinę simpoziumo dieną mokslininkė skaitė pranešimą ir diskutavo apie žurnalo „International Journal of Economic Crime“ strategiją. Ingrida yra šio tarptautinio mokslinio žurnalo vyriausiojo redaktoriaus pavaduotoja.

Dr Skirmantas Bikelis presented two papers at the symposium. During the session “Non-Conviction-Based Forfeiture”, he presented “Civil (?) Confiscation in Lithuania and the EU Legal Framework,” discussing civil confiscation – a field that the researcher has been studying for many years and on which he has published numerous academic papers. In the session “What and Who Are We Missing in Our Discussions on Strategic Corruption and Illicit Finance?”, Skirmantas delivered his second presentation, “Threats as Strategic Corruption?”, addressing the concept of geopolitical (strategic) corruption.

Dr. Sarmitė Mikulionienė, Senior Researcher at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LCSS) and lead researcher of the VAM project, participated in the 17th Conference of the European Sociological Association (ESA), “Strengthening Democracies: Social Action, Solidarity, and Sustainable Futures".

The conference was held in Warsaw, Poland, on 25-28 August 2026. Dr. Mikulionienė presented research examining the factors that influence older people’s intentions either to continue working or to leave the labour market as soon as possible, with particular attention paid to gender differences. In the session devoted to social justice and ageism at work, Dr. Mikulionienė presented a paper entitled “Determinants of Extended Working Lives: Gendered Profiles”. The presentation featured findings from the ongoing project “(Not)prolonging the working life of older women: legal environment, guarantees and intentions” (VAM).

Using microdata from the SHARE database (N = 2,745), the study examined and compared the work intentions of employees aged 55 and over in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Particularly striking contrasts were found between Estonia and Lithuania. Estonia is characterised by a “flexible” or “soft” retirement model, with as many as 84% of older workers expressing a desire to remain active in the labour market. In Lithuania, by contrast, a “hard” retirement model predominates: due to the inflexibility of the system, older workers experience what can be described as systemic fatigue, with as many as 85% expressing a desire to leave the labour market as early as possible.

Based on the SwAge methodology and decision-tree analysis, the study identified specific barriers and motivational factors that vary according to workers’ gender and level of education. The findings demonstrate that simply increasing the statutory retirement age is not sufficient to encourage older people to remain in employment.

Dr. Mikulionienė emphasises that public policy should focus on:
1.  Flexibility adapted to health conditions: moving away from rigid employment and retirement models towards solutions that can be adapted to workers’ health and individual circumstances.
2. Gender-sensitive psychosocial working environment indicators: creating working environments that take into account gender-specific priorities and the different factors that motivate older women and men to remain active in the labour market for longer.

Dr. Sarmitė Mikulionienė’s participation in the conference and the research presented were funded by the project “(Not)prolonging the working life of older women: legal environment, guarantees and intentions” (VAM, Contract No. S-MIP-24-29).

Despite cultural and legal differences, sharenting—a combination of sharing and parenting, referring to parents' tendency to document and share moments from their children's lives online—is a global phenomenon that has now entered its third decade. While widely regarded as a form of parental self-expression, sharenting also raises significant ethical and legal concerns. It may jeopardise children's right to privacy, as their images and personal information are often shared without their consent, potentially resulting in long-term consequences such as digital identity theft, cyberbullying, or the misuse of their images.

In the chapter "Balancing Public and Private: Sharenting and Child Rights in the Baltic States", published in the edited volume "Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Sharenting: Parenting, Privacy, and Consent" (Routledge, 2026), researchers Dr Kristina Ambrazevičiūtė and Dr Agnė Limantė of the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, together with Professor Merle Eriksen of the University of Tartu, examine the phenomenon of sharenting in the context of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The authors point out that none of these countries has yet adopted specific measures or developed guidelines directly addressing this practice. Against the backdrop of this regulatory gap, the chapter assesses whether the existing legal framework provides meaningful protection for children whose digital identities are constructed online before they are able to exercise autonomy over decisions concerning the disclosure of their personal information.

Based on their empirical research, the authors conclude that all three Baltic States have an adequate legal framework to address situations involving sharenting. This framework includes the constitutional right to privacy, the child's right to express their views, the definition of parental responsibilities, and the principle of the primacy of the child's best interests. The researchers therefore argue that the most effective way to address the challenges and risks associated with sharenting is not through the creation of new legal instruments, but through systematic public education and the development of practical guidelines for parents. In their view, the core problem in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia is not parental malice, but rather a lack of awareness and understanding of the potential consequences of a child's digital footprint.

The book containing the chapter by researchers from the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences and the University of Tartu is available for reading and purchase here. here

A year and a half ago, Springer, one of the world's most prestigious academic publishers, published The Crossroads of Competition Law and Energy Regulation, a monograph by Dr. Laura Rimšaitė, a researcher at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LCSS). In this book, the author explores how to strike a balance between fostering competitive energy markets and ensuring effective regulation. She also examines the challenges of reconciling market competition with regulatory objectives such as reliability, fairness, and sustainability.

This year, the monograph received important international recognition by being featured in Boletín de Novedades Bibliográficas, the Spanish National Commission on Markets and Competition's (CNMC) specialized bibliography of recommended publications prepared for the institution's experts, researchers, and analysts.

The CNMC is one of the European Union's leading national authorities responsible for competition enforcement and the oversight of regulated sectors, including energy. It supervises one of Europe's largest energy markets and plays an active role in addressing issues related to competition, the energy transition, market liberalization, and energy security.

The CNMC's bibliographic bulletin is not a general overview of newly published books. Rather, it is a carefully curated selection of recent international scholarly publications considered relevant to the daily work of the institution's experts. The inclusion of Dr. Rimšaitė's monograph therefore demonstrates that the issues it addresses at the intersection of competition law and energy regulation are of practical relevance not only to the academic community but also to institutions involved in shaping and implementing energy and competition policy across Europe.

The CNMC's bibliographic bulletins typically feature publications issued by leading international academic publishers and authored by established scholars from Western Europe, the United Kingdom, and North America. The inclusion of a monograph by a Lithuanian scholar may therefore be regarded as a significant indicator of international visibility and recognition, highlighting the book's potential impact on both professional practice and regulatory policymaking.

Rimšaitė, L. (2024). The Crossroads of Competition Law and Energy Regulation. Springer Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-73238-6

The book can be accessed here – https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-73238-6

CNMC's bibliographic bulletin is accessed here – https://www.cnmc.es/sites/default/files/editor_contenidos/Promocion/Biblioteca/202507_Boletin_de_Novedades_Bibliograficas_N24_WEB.pdf

The Research Council of Lithuania has awarded funding under the Programme for the Implementation of Lithuanian Studies Priority Areas for 2025–2030 to the LCSS Law Institute project "Post-Soviet to European? Diverging Paths of Prison Systems and Carceral Collectivism in the Baltic States (BRIDGE)." The project will be implemented from 1 July 2026 to 30 December 2028 by Dr Rūta Vaičiūnienė (project leader), Dr Gavin Slade, Dr Arta Jalili Idrissi, and PhD candidate Goda Dainauskaitė.

Through the project, the researchers will analyse the developmental trajectories of prison systems in the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) from a contextual and comparative perspective, with particular attention to models of carceral collectivism and cell-based imprisonment, their transformations, and lived experience in everyday prison life. Following the restoration of independence, the Baltic states shared similar historical starting positions, however, over time, their reform paths diverged. The outcomes of these trajectories are reflected in international evaluations, prison infrastructure, organisational governance, and the social life of prisons. Estonia implemented a fundamental restructuring of prison infrastructure and the execution of imprisonment, Latvia has entered a new phase of modernisation, while Lithuania remains the most reliant on the carceral collectivism – a legacy of Soviet times.

The researchers will examin how different forms of imprisonment materialise in the physical and social prison environment, how they are internalised by staff and prisoners, and how they shape interpersonal relations, subculture, order maintenance, organisational functioning and institutional environment.

The project will develop and publish methodological guidelines for empirical research involving prisoners, prison staff, and policymakers. These guidelines will make a significant contribution to research on prison systems in post-Soviet countries.

The research team of the project consists of: Dr Rūta Vaičiūnienė (project leader), Dr Gavin Slade, Dr Arta Jalili Idrissi, and PhD candidate Goda Dainauskaitė.

The project is funded by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT), Contract No. S-LISm-26-19.

More information about the project here.

In their article “Post-Soviet Prisons in Lithuania: Examining Prison Officers’ Perspectives in the Context of Ongoing Reforms,” published in the journal “Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie,” researchers at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences – Dr. Artūras Tereškinas, Dr. Rūta Vaičiūnienė, Dr. Simonas Nikartas, and Dr. Liubovė Jarutienė – examine the daily roles, responsibilities, and perceptions of prison officers in three Lithuanian prisons. The findings reveal a duality in officers’ roles, as they are required to navigate between rigid bureaucratic structures inherited from the Soviet era and modern aspirations to develop a humane and rehabilitative correctional system. This duality stems from the fact that Lithuanian prisons remain institutions shaped by Soviet-era historical legacy – marked by outdated infrastructure and entrenched criminal subculture – while simultaneously undergoing reforms aimed at aligning with European standards.

The analysis of empirical data, collected through 33 semi-structured interviews and four focus group discussions, demonstrates that officers working in Resocialisation Units primarily perceive themselves as caregivers, focusing on emotional support, conflict resolution, and attending to the individual needs of inmates. One of the main obstacles to effective work in these units is bureaucratic overload, which has paradoxically increased as a result of recent reforms. In contrast, Security Management Units have retained practices deeply rooted in Soviet-era disciplinary frameworks characterised by hierarchical obedience and rigid formality. This dichotomy fosters interpersonal tensions between different groups of staff and undermines the collaboration necessary for successful institutional reform. Officers’ practices and responses to reform initiatives are also shaped by differing perceptions of prison subculture: while some perceive it as a functional tool for maintaining order, others explicitly identify it as a Soviet legacy that encodes tension and mistrust.

According to the authors, achieving meaningful change in Lithuanian prisons requires systemic interventions that reduce excessive bureaucratic burdens, improve officers’ professional training, and bridge the divide between staff working in security-oriented and resocialisation-focused units.

The open-access article can be accessed here.

This article was written using data from the project “Changes in prison officers’ professional roles within the shifting custodial sentencing policy and practice” (PRISTA), implemented by the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LSMC) and funded by the Research Council of Lithuania. The project results are available at: https://teise.org/projektai/prista/.

Dr. Ingrida Kerušauskaitė-Palmer, Senior Research Fellow at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, delivered two presentations on geopolitical strategic corruption and “corrosive” capital at international conferences in late March – early April.

From 30 March to 1 April 2026, the 20th Research Committee on Political Finance and Political Corruption (a branch of the International Political Science Association, IPSA) held its bi-annual conference at the Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lisbon. The Committee examines the multifaceted role of money and resources in political life and public governance, including political party and campaign financing, lobbying, media manipulation, and other mechanisms of illicit political influence. Its scholars empirically test theoretical concepts and promote international and comparative research. At this conference, Dr Kerušauskaitė-Palmer presented a paper titled “Assessing Preparedness to Counter Geopolitical Strategic Corruption: A Comparative Analysis of Political Integrity Policies”, co-authored with Andrew Rogan. This paper examines how political integrity policies, frameworks and institutions can detect and respond to geopolitical strategic corruption, defined as a state’s use of corruption as a foreign policy instrument. The paper develops a framework to assess national readiness to confront geopolitical strategic corruption and tests it through a comparative case study of Moldova’s 2024 and 2025 elections, both targeted by malign foreign actors. The findings provide practical insights for policymakers aiming to strengthen preparedness against geopolitical strategic corruption.

On 8–10 April 2026, the International Research Society for Public Management (IRSPM) held its annual conference “Beyond Boundaries: Wellbeing, Innovation and the Future of Public Management” at the School of Business and Law of Edith Cowan University in Perth, Australia, bringing together scholars, students, and practitioners of public management from around the world. This year’s conference focused on new research and discussions on the role of wellbeing and innovation in the future of public governance. On 9 April, Dr Kerušauskaitė-Palmer also presented her paper “Geopolitical Strategic Corruption Risks in Development Finance”. She noted that in recent decades, increasing volumes of funding have been channelled through development finance institutions and development banks. While these institutions typically have well established business integrity teams equipped to identify and counter corruption, they are not immune to geopolitical strategic corruption risks. Such risks can include complex, long-term government-orchestrated schemes to gain control over other countries’ political figures, strategic industries, and key pillars of democratic governance using corrupt practices and corrosive capital. In her presentation, the researcher offered a practical understanding of responsible investment risks and provided concrete, actionable recommendations for investors facing geopolitical strategic corruption and corrosive capital risks.

On 30 April 2026, the internationally recognized publishing house Cambridge University Press published a collective monograph “The Cambridge Handbook of AI and Technologies in Courts”, which was led by researchers from the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (hereinafter – the Law Institute). In this book, 72 authors from 25 countries examine the use of AI and digital technologies in courts across domestic and regional jurisdictions in Europe, North and South America, the Asia-Pacific region, and Africa. Among the contributors are representatives from Lithuania, including the Law Institute and Vilnius University.

In many countries (from Brazil to Poland and Lithuania), artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in courts, particularly for auxiliary technical tasks such as transcribing court hearings, assisting with the anonymisation of judgments, and similar functions. There are also already initial attempts to apply the capabilities of artificial intelligence in judicial work, including analysing case materials and assisting in the drafting and adoption of court decisions. It is hoped that these innovations will help reduce workloads, especially where resources are limited and court caseloads are overwhelming.

In this Handbook, scholars, judges, policymakers, legal professionals, and technologists from more than 60 different international academic institutions, public administration, and business organisations provide an interdisciplinary and cross-jurisdictional perspective on how artificial intelligence is deployed in courts, what legal and practical challenges this raises, and how judicial institutions are responding to the opportunities and risks posed by AI use in courts

The central insight that emerges from the forty-five chapters of this Handbook is that the impact of AI on courts cannot be understood merely as a question of technological progress or administrative modernisation. When AI is used by judges, this is a question about the future of justice. The deployment of AI in judicial systems touches the very foundations of the rule of law, fundamental rights, democratic accountability, institutional legitimacy, and public trust, and requires us to rethink the very nature of courts. If AI systems are used not only to assist the court‘s administrative tasks but to take judicial decisions – if ‘robo-judging’ moves from science fiction to reality – then we must ask: what remains of the judicial function?

Therefore, each chapter examines not just how AI can be deployed in courts, but also what courts must do to ensure that AI tools enhance, rather than erode judicial values, justice and the rule of law. The editors of this internationally significant publication – Dr. Monika Žalnieriūtė and Dr. Agnė Limantė, senior researchers at the Law Institute – note that upon completing the book it became clear that the future of courts and AI is not a question of “if”, but “how”. The integration of AI and digital technologies into courts is no longer theoretical, peripheral, or experimental – it is global, active, and transformative

The preparation of this book was supported by the Research Council of Lithuania under the project Artificial Intelligence in Courts: Challenges and Opportunities (TeismAI), agreement number: S-MIP-23-73.

The book can be accessed here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-ai-and-technologies-in-courts/C16E665E36D28143B92988D28D7A12BF

.

On 17 April 2026, the 6th international scientific–practical conference “Trends and Challenges in European and National Criminal Policy” was held at the Ministry of Justice. For the second consecutive year, it was organized by criminal justice scholars from four Lithuanian legal research institutions: the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LCSS), Mykolas Romeris University (MRU), the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (hereinafter – VMU), and the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University (hereinafter – VU). This year, the main organizer of the conference was the LCSS Law Institute. The conference was opened and participants were welcomed by Vice-Minister of Justice Martynas Dobrovolskis and Director of the LCSS Law Institute, Dr Dovilė Pūraitė-Andrikienė.

The conference consisted of three sessions. In the first session, held in English, scholars O. Calavita from the University of Turin (Italy), C. Konopatsch from FenUni (Switzerland), and M. Kilchling from the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law (Germany), together with S. Bikelis from the LCSS Law Institute, analysed the legal regulation of confiscation of criminal assets in Italy, Austria, Germany, and Lithuania, respectively, and its compliance with the new Confiscation Directive No. 2024/1260. S. Bikelis presented a dilemma currently faced in Lithuania: whether to implement the Directive through an improved civil asset confiscation law or to supplement the regulation within criminal legislation. The first option entails certain risks related to international cooperation. It also illustrates the fluidity of confiscation instruments between civil and criminal law. The working group addressing this issue has opted for the first approach.

The second session focused mainly on issues of criminal procedure, including the immunity of politicians from criminal liability, judicial impartiality, and a range of procedural issues where practice may interpret procedural law too flexibly. It also addressed the problem of appealing against clearly misapplied legal provisions after a fine has been paid and, finally, discussed issues related to the enforcement of penalties, more specifically, conditional release from places of imprisonment.

The third session, devoted to substantive criminal law issues, featured two presentations by doctoral student Liutauras Lukošius of the Law Institute: “Fragmentation of Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion: Is a Consolidated Solution Possible?” and, together with colleagues from MRU and VDU, “Issues of Compensation for Damage Due to Temporary Restrictions of Property Rights in Criminal Proceedings.”

In addition to these topics, the session also covered issues such as the dilemmas of criminalising unlawful collection of personal data, the indeterminacy of the offence of abuse of office, and the reform of the regulation of sexual offences, including the introduction of liability for sexual relations without consent. The latter topic sparked some of the most intense discussions during the closing part of the conference.