On April 4, the fifth joint criminal justice conference, organized by Vytautas Magnus University (VDU), Mykolas Romeris University (MRU), and the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LCSS), was held, this time joined for the first time by Vilnius University (VU). This year, the conference took place in Kaunas at Vytautas Magnus University. Two researchers from the Institute delivered presentations: Dr. Rokas Uscila presented “The Penal Enforcement System in Lithuania: Quo Vadis”, and Dr. Skirmantas Bikelis spoke on “Standards of Proof in Asset Confiscation Proceedings in Lithuania and Europe”.

In his presentation, Dr. Rokas Uscila emphasized the importance of consistently pursuing strategic objectives established in the strategic documents of both the Lithuanian Prison Service and the Lithuanian Probation Service. The most significant challenges faced by the Prison Service include the phasing out of outdated and inadequate infrastructure and addressing fundamental personnel issues: the transition of staff to dynamic security and resocialization roles, balancing core job responsibilities and prison work, shaping a new generation of officers, and shifting the relationship between correctional officers and service providers (such as social workers, psychologists, therapists, and program facilitators).

Dr. Skirmantas Bikelis highlighted the absence of a unified standard of proof in civil proceedings, both at the national and international levels. Paradoxically, the standard of proof regarding the origin of assets (though not culpability) in criminal proceedings may be lower than in civil proceedings, where it can be higher. A cause for concern is the observable trend of exceptionally low standards of proof being tolerated in establishing guilt in criminal proceedings - such as in Latvia for asset legalization cases and in Lithuania for unlawful enrichment cases. Dr. Bikelis also adressed the importance of distinguishing between the standard of proof and the nature of evidence. Indirect (circumstantial) evidence should not be equated with a lower standard of proof. Full conviction regarding the criminal origin of assets can indeed be reached through indirect evidence.