The forty-first (XXXXI) International Symposium on Economic Crime, sponsored by a wide range of international organisations and UK government agencies, took place at Jesus College, University of Cambridge.

The symposium, which has attracted more than 1800 participants from over 100 different countries in recent years, this year brought together experts and academics to share their countries' unique cases in addressing one of the greatest threats to national and international economic stability and development. The main theme of this year's conference was asset control and strategies of addressing acquisitive criminal activity and suspicious assets.

One of the world's leading universities hosted a week of presentations and discussions, during which various academics, representatives of national institutions and members of non-governmental organisations shared their theoretical and practical visions for the future, political and legal strategies, national practices, and the perspectives for improving tools to prevent economic crime.

Surrounded by researchers, judges, prosecutors, officials, and representatives of private sector organisations from various countries, Skirmantas Bikelis, a Senior Research Fellow at the LCSS Law Institute, shared the Lithuanian case - the variety of tools and strategies to prevent money laundering and confiscate suspicious assets. The researcher and the LEKOSTRA project leader shared the results of the research and discussed the mixed civil approach to suspicious assets.

More about the project led by Skirmantas Bikelis.

The 19th Conference of the European Society of International Law (ESIL) took place in Vilnius on 5-6 September 2024. The theme of this year's conference was "Technological Change and International Law".

Researchers from different countries, national and international institutions and non-governmental organisations discussed how technological progress affects international law. They also discussed extensively the issues of cybersecurity, data protection, artificial intelligence and the regulation of other emerging technologies in the context of global challenges.

The event was also attended by Dr Agnė Limantė, Senior Research Fellow at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences. Her presentation "Facial Recognition Technology in Russia's War Against Ukraine: from Awareness Raising to Evidence before the Courts" brought together two significant subjects - technological advances and Russia's war in Ukraine.

According to A. Limantė, facial recognition technologies in Ukraine are used for counter-intelligence, identification of individuals (victims, detained soldiers and civilians) and counter-propaganda. "Although currently used only for information gathering and validation in the battlefield, in future wars it could become a weapon if integrated into the drones used in combat operations," the Institute's researcher said.

However, information gathered on the battlefield can be used for more than just military purposes. Data obtained through facial recognition technologies can become evidence in court proceedings. During the presentation, the researcher not only analysed the conditions created in Ukraine for using such data, but also discussed the emerging challenges of accuracy, privacy and ethics.

Yuliia Moskvytyn, an intern at the LCSS Law Institute (under the UPinLT internship programme) contributed to the preparation of the paper by collecting data.

The presentation is based on the publication "Faces of War: Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine and Military Use of Facial Recognition Technology" by Dr. Agnė Limante, published in the book "The Cambridge Handbook of Facial Recognition in the Modern State" (eds. Rita Matulionytė and Monika Žalnieriūtė).

“Privacy, Data Protection and Data-driven Technologies” has just been published by the internationally renowned publishing house Routledge. The book aims to address the challenges posed by technology to existing data protection laws and to find balance between the development of technology and the protection of individuals’ privacy. The editors of the book, Prof. Martin Ebers and Prof. Karin Sein, colleagues at the University of Tartu, have brought together Europe’s leading scholars in law and technology for this purpose.

We are glad that one of them is Dr. Monika Žalnieriūtė, Senior Research Fellow at the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences Institute of Law. In the 12th chapter of the book “Beyond Procedural Fetishism: The Inadequacy of GDPR in Regulating Facial Recognition Technologies and Public Space Surveillance“, she examines in detail the phenomenon of procedural fetishism – focusing on procedural safeguards. In the spring, the researcher presented this topic to participants at a conference of the Lithuanian Association of Criminologists.

In the chapter, M. Žalnieriūtė discusses the rapidly expanding use of the facial recognition technologies and the inadequate regulation of the European Union‘s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). According to the author, the GDPR tends to focus on procedural safeguards in the hope that it will be sufficient to limit the powers of institutions and private businesses in relation to data protection. Finally, the researcher concludes that the need for stricter regulation of facial recognition technologies is inevitable, and that new regulations will have to be characterised by redistribution of power, redrawing boundaries and democratisation of technology companies.

The English chapter of Dr. Monika Žalnieriūtė is available here (chargeable access): https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003502791-17/beyond-procedural-fetishism-monika-zalnieriute

Zalnieriute, M. (2024). Beyond Procedural Fetishism: The Inadequacy of GDPR in Regulating Facial Recognition Technologies and Public Space Surveillance. In M. Ebers and K. Sein (Eds.), Privacy, Data Protection and Data-driven Technologies (1st ed., pp. 328–367). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003502791-17.

On 2 July, the Social Security and Health Committee of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, together with international partners, invited representatives of various organisations and experts to a conference on “Drug Policy in the Republic of Moldova”. Representatives of six ministries, various state institutions (customs, border police, General Police, National Public Health Agency, penitentiary, probation, etc.), NGOs and drug-using communities’ representatives, national, regional and international experts participated in the event in Chisinau or remotely. It is a pleasure to see that among the latter were not only the former Mayor of Prague (Czech Republic), Dr Pavel Bem, who is currently advising the Prime Minister of his country on drug issues, or the head of the Estonian Health Development Institute, Aliona Kurbatova, but also Dr Mindaugas Lankauskas, a researcher at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LCSS LI).

At the conference, participants discussed Moldova’s drug policy and harm reduction, the impact of existing legislation on the fight against drugs, and the need for necessary reforms. Drug policies and services, according to the participants, need to be continuously improved in order to increasingly respect the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. At the same time, this will also help the country to move forward in its integration into the European Union.

M. Lankauskas in his presentation “Threshold Quantities for Illicit Drugs: Understanding Lithuania’s Legal Framework for Drug Offenses” focused on discussing Lithuania’s legal framework for determining the quantity of illicit drugs.

“In Lithuania,” the scientist told the audience, “criminal liability for illegal disposal of narcotics and psychotropic substances does not depend on the type of substance, but on the quantity of the controlled substance. The use of drugs is an administrative offence, the possession of small quantities is a criminal offence, and the possession or distribution of larger quantities is a criminal offence with severe penalties.”

Finally, a researcher from the LCSS LI briefed the participants of the Lithuanian regulation on estimating the net quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Moldova, which currently punishes the total amount of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances without measuring their content or concentration, is considering introducing a model similar to Lithuania's in the future.

The event was co-organised and supported by the Eurasian Harm Reduction Association (EHRA), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and other Moldovan civil society organisations.

If one is interested to learn more about drug regulation policy issues, one can read Dr M. Lankauskas’ recent article “How Does Themis Weigh Drugs? Peculiarities of the Legal Regulation of the Determination of Quantities of Some Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances in Lithuania” (article in Lithuanian) published in the journal “Criminological Studies”.

For English-speaking readership, we suggest the latest publication by Mindaugas Lankauskas and his fellow colleague Skirmantas Bikelis “Penal Response to Less Serious Drug Distribution Offenses: The Case of Lithuania in the Regional Context”, which explores the criminological contexts of less serious drug distribution offences and the penal frameworks of the relevant countries in the Baltic region.

On 31st May, when the forces of nature were battling outside the window over which of them would scare the city’s residents and visitors more, the participants of a discussion held on the occasion of the Lithuanian Criminologists’ Day in the auditorium of Vilnius University’s Faculty of Philosophy engaged the audience in a struggle of ideas about trust in justice. The theme of this year’s discussion, which has become a tradition of the Lithuanian Association of Criminologists, was “Trust in Justice: What do we Expect from Criminology?”.

The discussion, moderated by Dr Eglė Vileikienė, representative of the Ministry of the Interior, was attended by both criminology academics and practitioners - representatives of the police and the judiciary system. Skirmantas Bikelis, a researcher at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, also shared his insights.

The discussion and the Q&A session focused on how and why trust in law enforcement and judiciary system is changing. For example, why has trust in the Lithuanian police increased significantly over the last decade, while the public security situation has not changed much? The participants exchanged quite different views on whether the courts should invest in their image and improve communication with the public by explaining their decisions that are not understood by all, and whether the involvement of judges in communication with the public limits their independence?

Finally, ideas were shared on how criminological knowledge could contribute to the development of science-based law enforcement practice. Dr S. Bikelis pointed out that in the current trend of increasing recognition of the importance of circumstantial evidence and the context of a case in the process of evidence discovery and assessment, criminological knowledge is becoming more important than ever for law enforcement officials and judges.

On May 22, the annual “IQ Forum” took place at the Public Library of Marijampolė named after Petras Kriaučiūnas. This traditional event is organized for the business community of Sūduva by the magazine “IQ” and the Marijampolė branch of the Kaunas Chamber of Commerce, Industry, and Crafts. Representatives from businesses and non-governmental organizations, as well as the mayor and vice mayor of Marijampolė, and several members of the Lithuanian Parliament and Marijampolė Municipal Council attended this year’s forum titled “Sūduva 2024: How Can Regions Catch the Wave of Success?”

Among the honourable speakers at the event was Monika Šukytė, a PhD student at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (hereinafter - LI LCSS) and a junior researcher in the project “Artificial Intelligence in Courts: Challenges and Opportunities” (TeismAI). In her presentation “Artificial Intelligence in State Institutions: Towards Technology Adoption”, she discussed how artificial intelligence is used in police and the judiciary, and also the challenges this technology poses in the context of human rights.

In the first part of her presentation, drawing on the results of the recently completed LI LCSS project “Government Use of Facial Recognition Technologies: Legal Challenges and Solutions” (Faces-AI) and her doctoral research, M. Šukytė spoke about the use of facial recognition technology (hereinafter - FRT) in police activities. She explained the operating principles of these technologies and provided practical examples of their use in law enforcement agencies in Lithuania and other countries. At the end of her presentation, she also highlighted the challenges that the use of FRT poses to human rights, such as the right to data protection and privacy.

The second part of her presentation was based on preliminary results from the project “Artificial Intelligence in Courts: Challenges and Opportunities” (TeismAI), funded by the Lithuanian Research Council. This part focused on the use of artificial intelligence tools in the judiciary. “Generative artificial intelligence, such as the chatbot ChatGPT,” M. Šukytė explained to the forum participants, “has already been applied in preparing procedural documents and deepfakes have already reached courts as evidence.” She concluded her presentation by discussing the challenges arising in the context of human rights and judicial values, including issues of algorithmic bias, the right to an impartial trial, and the question of accountability for errors made by algorithms.

The slides from Monika Šukytė’s presentation can be accessed here.

This year’s Lithuanian Criminologists’ Association conference focused on the changes brought by new technological solutions in crime control, punishment, and the work of law enforcement agencies. The event, held on April 19 at the Vilnius University Library’s Scientific Communication and Information Centre, was abundant not only in participants but also in speakers from the field of technology, who are less commonly seen at such conferences.

Among the invited guests at the plenary session was Monika Žalnieriūtė, a researcher at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences. Her presentation, “Institutional Power, Technology, and Procedural Fetishism,” intrigued attendees even before it was delivered.

“Procedural fetishism,” according to the researcher, “is a phenomenon where attention is focused on procedural elements. Procedures are certainly necessary,” continued M. Žalnieriūtė, “but sometimes they distract us from more important issues.”

As an example, the speaker highlighted the problem of facial recognition technologies (hereinafter - FRT), which are widely used in airports, hospitals and so on. In one Chinese city of more than three million inhabitants, institutions can locate a person within seven minutes. This was proven possible even if people are wearing masks, as the recent pandemic has proven. On the other hand, intensive use of FRT in protests may violate people’s equal rights before the law. There are municipalities in the US that prohibit the use of facial recognition technologies in city centres or similar areas, but in reality, according to the researcher, this field is poorly regulated. “Then the question arises, do we want free city streets and squares, or do we want more security?” M. Žalnieriūtė asked the attendees.

According to the researcher, large corporations are using various means to distract the society’s attention from the process of concentrating power in their hands by offering us to work on micro-elements. As a result, societies are not talking about fundamental aspects, such as, do we really want facial recognition technology to be used in city squares? Therefore, it is very important not to lose sight of the main question among the many small elements that prevent from seeing the big picture. If this is not prevented, mass surveillance could become a common phenomenon. Therefore, society and activists must constantly bring these important issues back to decision-makers.

Answering the question “What should be done?”, the researcher first pointed to the incredibly increased powers of private businesses. “They can already influence national elections, which would have significant consequences for various regions,” said M. Žalnieriūtė. Therefore, she suggested that the technical infrastructure should be decolonized, thereby reducing their concentrated powers. In order to democratise them, councils could be introduced to help oversee the provision of their services, which could already be equated to public services.

In conclusion, the researcher emphasised that procedural fetishism is very dangerous because when it prevails, problems are discussed neutrally. The focus is on finding small agreements, but very important questions are not being addressed.

Dr Monika Žalnieriūtė is currently leading the project funded by the Lithuanian Research Council “AI in Courts: Challenges and Opportunities” (TeismAI).

On 19th of April, 2024, the conference of the Lithuanian Association of Criminologists attracted a large number of participants with a wide range of presentations by researchers and practitioners in the fields of technology and criminology. This year, the organisers invited to discuss contemporary connections between criminology in science, practice and everyday life.

In one of the sessions “Corruption and Transparency in the Public Sector”, Skirmantas Bikelis, a researcher at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LCSS LI), shared his insights with the audience, which was barely able to fit in the room. In his presentation “When Those Convicted of Corruption Rule: The Dilemma Between the Prohibition on Running for Office and the Prohibition on Holding Office? Issues of Verbosity and Proportionality”, the researcher examined the controversial issues of regulation and application of the prohibition on holding public office and being elected, while comparing the regulation in Lithuania and Germany, where there are substantial differences.

Dr. Skirmantas Bikelis began his presentation by discussing the relevant provisions of the European Union Directive project draft on the fight against corruption. “If the project of Directive is adopted,” he said, “Lithuania will have to abandon the long-standing principle that only one punishment is applicable for a single offence, as the draft requires courts to be able to impose a range of additional measures (in addition to the main sanction), including fines, in relation to corruption offences.”

Discussing the relevant 2023 trials, in which problems have arisen with the application of the prohibition on being elected to public office, the researcher identifies the excessive wording in the Criminal Code as one of the main reasons for the strange decisions of Lithuanian courts. “The multi-wording and over-simplification of the text of the Penal Code, with casuistic descriptions of the procedural aspects of the deprivation of a right, opens the door to mistakes,” said Dr. Skirmantas Bikelis.

At the end of his presentation, the researcher drew attention to one of the most recent changes in the Electoral Code, which expanded the restrictions on the right to be elected, and highlighted the problematic nature of these changes from the point of view of the principle of proportionality. According to these amendments, individuals are automatically deprived of the right to participate actively in political life, even if a court does not impose a prohibition, but imposes any criminal measure (deprivation of driving privileges, deprivation of the right to fish, an obligation to compensate for property damage, etc.) for an offence that may not be in any way related to political activity, such as causing a traffic accident. The conflict with the principle of proportionality is particularly evident when comparing the Lithuanian regulation with the much more restrained and weighted approach of the German legislator.

Dr. Skirmantas Bikelis’ latest publications on the topic of the prohibition to hold public office:

• “Legal Stability in Lithuania: How Long Should a Mayor Convicted of Corruption Stay in Power?” (article written in Lithuanian).
• “Tubis or not Tubis - this is the Question for Our State of Law and Democracy” (article written in Lithuanian).

Dr. Skirmantas Bikelis is currently leading a project funded by the Lithuanian Research Council “Criminalization of Asset Legalization in the System of Criminal Profit Control Strategies“ (LEKOSTRA).

On April 19, 2024, the National Conference of the Lithuanian Criminologists’ Association “Contemporary Connections in Criminology: Science, Practice, Everyday Life” took place. The annual event was attended by scientists and practitioners from various fields, who aimed to reveal the role of technology in criminology and discuss about the perspectives and threats of technology in law enforcement.

At the conference, scientists from the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences also presented their reports. Dr. Rūta Vaičiūnienė in her presentation “Transformations and Reformations of the Professional Role of Prison Officers” introduced and compared the prison models of Western and post-Soviet countries, highlighting the differences in the roles of prison officers.

Additionally, the researcher presented the latest data from the focus group discussion of the project “Changes in prison officers’ professional roles within the shifting custodial sentencing policy and practice” (PRISTA), funded by the Research Council of Lithuania. The findings revealed the daily life of prison officers: collaboration among colleagues, the implementation of resocialization goals, relationships between officers, and internal professional roles’ conflicts of prison staff.

After presentation, discussions with conference participants revolved around the assumptions of the final research results.

On April 12, 2024, the fourth international scientific-practical conference “Trends and Challenges in European and National Criminal Policy” organised by the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LCSS LI), the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University, and the Law School of Mykolas Romeris University was held. At the event, along with Lithuanian and foreign researchers and practitioners, Dr. Mindaugas Lankauskas and Dr. Skirmantas Bikelis from LCSS LI also participated.

Mindaugas Lankauskas presented a topic “How Does Themis Weigh Drugs? Legal Framework for the Determination of Drug Quantities in Lithuania”. During his presentation, the researcher introduced criteria for determining the quantity of psychoactive substances and its impact on criminal liability.

“Why do the quantities of hashish and cannabis differ by up to 20 times according to our legislation?” - rhetorically asked Dr. Lankauskas, identifying problematic aspects of drug quantity determination. Finally, the researcher also presented his proposals on what should be done to ensure that the law regarding quantity does not abandon the principle of proportionality.

This topic was thoroughly examined in a recent article by Dr. Lankauskas titled “How does Themis Weigh Drugs? Peculiarities of the Legal Regulation of the Determination of Quantities of Some Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances in Lithuania” published in the scientific criminology journal “Criminological studies”, which is published by LCSS Law Institute in collaboration with the Lithuanian Criminologists’ Association and Vilnius University.

Skirmantas Bikelis presented a paper in English titled “Prohibition to Hold Public Office and Prohibition to Be Elected - Lithuanian v. German Approaches. Legal language and proportionality issue”. In his presentation, the researcher compared the regulation of Lithuania and Germany regarding an additional sanction - the prohibition to hold public office. At the end of his presentation, he identified linguistic aspects that could become reasons for failure when seeking to impose this additional punitive measure on the convicted individual.