NEWS

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 The most significant challenges faced by the Prison Service include the phasing out of outdated and inadequate infrastructure and addressing fundamental personnel issues: the transition of staff to dynamic security and resocialization roles, balancing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.

 

             

On March 21 of this year, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania hosted the conference “Confiscation Perspectives in Lithuania and Europe”. Before an audience that nearly filled the venue’s largest auditorium, the event opened with welcoming remarks by the Minister of Justice, Rimantas Mockus, and the Prosecutor General, Nida Grunskienė. This was followed by a presentation of the results of the scientific project “Money Laundering in the System of the Criminal Gains Control Strategies“ (LEKOSTRA), which is nearing completion at the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences. The conference also featured discussions on the latest strategies for confiscating criminal assets, with particular attention to their effectiveness and the risks they entail.

The presentations were delivered by the project team: project leader Dr Skirmantas Bikelis, along with Goda Dainauskaitė, Dr Darius Pranka, and Dr Laurynas Pakštaitis.

             

Pranešimų skaidrės:

• Skirmantas Bikelis, Konfiskavimo koncepcijos ir įrankiai, jų efektyvumas ir darna su teisės principais;
• Goda Dainauskaitė, Skirmantas Bikelis, Viršnacionalinės tendencijos turto konfiskavimo reguliavime;
• Darius Pranka, Išplėstinio turto konfiskavimo reguliavimo ydos ir jo taikymo perspektyvos Lietuvoje;
• Laurynas Pakštaitis, Ar turime ko pasimokyti iš britų?;
• Skirmantas Bikelis, Efektyvus konfiskavimas po įtarimo dėl turto legalizavimo: lietuviškos, vokiškos ir latviškos inovacijos.

             

Key messages expressed by the conference speakers:

• A declining emphasis on formal requirements is observed in the European confiscation regulatory framework.
• The fundamental safeguard ensuring the legitimacy of a confiscation decision lies not in formal prerequisites, but in the court’s conviction that the property was obtained through criminal means.
• Essential conditions for effective confiscation include:
  • systemic coherence between legal definitions and confiscation tools;
  • clarity in regulation and practice;
  • high-quality investigation into the criminal origin (context) of the property;
  • the judiciary’s capacity to make firm decisions based on practical conviction, through logically rigorous and strict evaluation of contextual and factual circumstances.
• The EU rejects civil confiscation proceedings and affirms the preference for criminal confiscation.
• The scope and substance of money laundering offences have already been maximally expanded, effectively enabling their use as a tool in confiscation processes.
• At the EU level, formal requirements (restrictive conditions) for confiscating criminal assets are being almost entirely removed.
• The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has taken a partially shifting and at times ambiguous stance.
• The current threshold of €12,500 for extended confiscation is unjustifiably high and lacks a sound legal rationale.
• Basing the application or non-application of extended confiscation on the principle of proportionality is problematic and incorrect.
• In the United Kingdom, a civil law-based alternative to criminal confiscation has proven effective, enabling the lawful seizure of assets derived from illicit activities.
• Nonetheless, even the most refined civil confiscation tools in the UK are used infrequently, face considerable challenges, and their application is evolving slowly.
• The German breakthrough in the area of criminal asset confiscation deserves attention not only for its strong practical outcomes but also as a model implementation of Directive 2024/1260.
• Noteworthy European developments include: the Lithuanian model (confiscation through the mechanism of ownerless property), the German model (standalone extended confiscation), the Latvian model (preliminary civil confiscation). Continued research and discussion are necessary to assess whether these represent a long-awaited solution or are simply “too good to be true”.

Following the presentations, an expert discussion took place featuring contributions from Vilnius University (VU) doctoral candidate and attorney Laura Martinaitytė, VU Professor and Justice of the Constitutional Court Aurelijus Gutauskas, Mykolas Romeris University Professor and Justice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania Olegas Fedosiuk, Associate Professor at Vytautas Magnus University and Prosecutor at the Kaunas Regional Prosecutor’s Office Marijus Šalčius, as well as other conference participants.

The discussion focused on which procedural model - criminal or civil - holds greater potential for future application. Participants also debated the appropriate definition of confiscable property: whether it should be limited to assets of criminal origin or more broadly defined as property of unexplained origin. Further deliberation addressed the role of judicial conviction regarding the origin of the property, as well as the relevance of formal conditions and the presumptions based upon them in the confiscation of criminal assets. The participants emphasized the importance of clarity regarding both the objective and the subject matter of confiscation for all parties involved in the process.

The outcomes of the project have been made publicly available:

• Bikelis, S., Pranka, D., Dainauskaitė, G. (2025). Penal vs. Confiscation-Only Approaches in Money Laundering Control. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 17(2), 188–206. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2024-00021.
• Bikelis, S. (2025). Confiscation Beyond the All-Crime Approach and the Proportionality Principle – A Case of the Lithuanian Illicit Enrichment Offence Concept. Laws, 14(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14010001.
• S. Bikelis. The Fight Against Unjust Enrichment - Where are the Limits of the Principle of Proportionality? (article written in Lithuanian). 2 January 2025, „Teisė.Pro“ and „Infolex.lt“.

The project is funded by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT), Agreement No. S-MIP-23-40.

Photo credit: Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.

             

On March 19, the Penal System Oversight Council began its work at the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. Among its members are criminologists Dr. Rūta Vaičiūnienė and Dr. Simonas Nikartas, delegated by the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences.

Aiming for a more open and modern penal system focused on support and resocialization, the Ministry of Justice has assembled ministry and penal system representatives, criminologists and other researchers, human rights experts, as well as non-governmental organizations and representatives of prisoners.

During the first meeting, participants discussed the importance of staff competence and psychological well-being in the penal system; the transparency, clarity, and effectiveness of prison regulations, probation, and parole systems; the expansion of work opportunities for prisoners; and other topics aimed at building a more progressive penal system.

More information: https://tm.lrv.lt/lt/naujienos/teisingumo-ministras-inicijavo-bausmiu-vykdymo-sistemos-prieziuros-taryba/

Photo by the the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.

 

              

The research conducted by Dr Salomėja Zaksaitė, a researcher at the LCSS Law Institute, "Analysis of the Lithuanian Judicial Practice in Corruption Cases in the Aspects of Standard of Proof, Evidence and Sentencing" has been published on the Lithuanian Courts website.

The case study analysed Lithuanian court practice in corruption cases under articles 225 (bribery), 226 (influence peddling) and 227 (bribery) of the Lithuanian criminal code. The main objective of the study was to assess the implementation of the criminal policy on corruption offences and, in line with the comments made by international organisations to Lithuania, the application of evidentiary standards and the severity of sentences imposed by the courts were also considered.

In the research report, Dr Salomėja Zaksaitė identifies the main factors that distinguish corruption offences from other offences, such as the secrecy of the activities and the absence of a "traditional" victim who gives initial testimony. The researcher identifies the weaknesses of the handling of corruption cases, where the law is applied too formally, often with a reductionist approach, and where there is a lack of interdisciplinary (economic, criminological, political science) knowledge in the contextualisation of the offence and its circumstances. However, Zaksaitė points out that the shortcomings listed above are more related to the general legal culture and the level (standard) of proceedings, rather than to the standard of proof per se. The standard of proof, which presupposes that there should be no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the convicted person, is the same in Lithuania for all categories of criminal cases.

The author hopes that the study will contribute to the identification of trends and challenges in the existing case law, thus aiming to improve the application of the law in corruption-related (criminal) cases.

The report of Dr. S. Zaksaitė's research (in lithuanian) can be found here.

             

The December 2024 issue of the Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, published by Vytautas Magnus University, features four articles authored by researchers from the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LCSS). One of them, "The Self-Restrained Positive Legislator: Assessing the Constitutional Review of Legislative Omissions in Lithuania", was co-authored by Dr. Dovilė Pūraitė-Andrikienė and her colleague Andrius Valuta. Another article, "Psychological Violence at Work: Problems in Applying the Law in Lithuania", was written by PhD candidate and junior researcher Aistė Leščinskaitė.

In their publication, Dr. Dovilė Pūraitė-Andrikienė and Andrius Valuta discuss the position of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania in addressing cases of legislative omission. The authors pay particular attention to the Court's efforts to maintain a balance between respecting the autonomy of legislative bodies and ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution. In order to achieve this, they examine the extent to which the Constitutional Court adheres to the principle of self-restraint, ensuring that its interventions do not unjustifiably encroach on the prerogatives of the legislative institutions.

The researchers conducted their study by pursuing the following three objectives: 1) To reveal the concept and typology of legislative omission in comparative constitutional law and to examine trends in its research (including statistical data) across European countries; 2) To analyze the official constitutional doctrine formulated by the Constitutional Court of Lithuania regarding the concept of legislative omission and the scope of the Court’s powers to review such omissions; 3) To investigate the practice of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania in addressing issues of legislative omission using quantitative data.

In her article, Aistė Leščinskaitė, a junior researcher at the LCSS Law Institute, discusses the recently introduced concept of psychological violence in the Lithuanian Labour Code (as of July 28, 2022) and presents an analysis of court practice on this issue. According to the researcher, the established definition of psychological violence is quite controversial and overly abstract. To prevent its misinterpretation, she emphasizes the need for detailed criteria.

Aistė Leščinskaitė analyzes the relatively recent but already valuable case law on psychological violence in the workplace. She pays particular attention to the most significant rulings that have had the greatest impact on discussions surrounding this issue. In her publication, the researcher systematically reviews key court decisions, examines their consequences, and evaluates how these rulings have contributed to the development of a consistent judicial practice.

 

The full article by Dr. Dovilė Pūraitė-Andrikienė and Andrius Valuta in English is available at –Pūraitė-Andrikienė, D. and Valuta A. (2024). The Self-Restrained Positive Legislator: Assessing the Constitutional Review of Legislative Omissions in Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 17(2), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2024-00014

The full article by PhD candidate Aistė Leščinskaitė in English is available at – Leščinskaitė A. (2024). Psychological Violence at Work: Problems in Applying the Law in Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 17(2), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2024-00023

 

Representative image by Tingey Injury Law Firm (unsplash.com).

             

In the second issue of the VDU Baltic Journal of Law & Politics of 2024, a publication by the LEKOSTRA project team – Dr. Skirmantas Bikelis, Dr. Darius Pranka, and Goda Dainauskaitė – was released under the title “Penal Vs. Confiscation-Only Approaches in Money Laundering Control”.

The article examines two principal approaches to controlling the laundering of criminal proceeds: one rooted in criminal prosecution and the other based on civil confiscation. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative analysis of court judgments, decisions, and rulings, the authors aim to explore how far and in what ways these two legal pathways lead towards the seizure of assets acquired through criminal activity.

The results of criminal prosecution appear rather bleak – at least until the process transitions to the recognition of property as ownerless under civil procedure. This shift reveals an intriguing outcome of cooperation between criminal and civil justice mechanisms.

Interestingly, such a turn from penal prosecution to alternative asset recovery strategies has become a notable trend in the region. Latvia, Germany, and Lithuania (which, in fact, is testing two distinct civil alternatives) are experimenting with innovative approaches – albeit with significant differences – and the results have been surprisingly promising. At the same time, this opens up space for a critical discussion: are these outcomes perhaps too favorable? Is this method of confiscation truly balanced and fair? Thus far, neither the European Commission (regarding Germany), nor the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (regarding Latvia), nor the Supreme Courts of Germany and Lithuania have expressed major concerns.

The publication is available here.

The project Money Laundering in the system of the Criminal Gains Control Strategies (LEKOSTRA) is funded by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT), Contract No. S-MIP-23-40.

 

              

At the end of last year, a significant change was introduced to the parole system in Lithuania - a Central National Parole Board was established by order of the Head of the Lithuanian Prison Service. This new board replaced the nine separate boards that had previously operated in prisons.

The first meeting of the new parole board was held in early January and was attended by 11 experts from the Lithuanian Prison Service, Lithuanian Probation Service, non-governmental organisations, associations, academic institutions and state and municipal bodies. The Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences has delegated Dr. Mindaugas Lankauskas and Dr. Rūta Vaičiūnienė (as an alternate member) to the parole board for a two-year term.

It is expected that this centralised parole board will be able to assess the individual circumstances of each prisoner more professionally and make well-informed decisions. For the first time in history, the members of the board will have access to anonymised information of inmates.

 

More information (in Lithuanian): https://kalejimai.lrv.lt/lt/naujienos/veikla-pradejo-naujos-sudeties-lygtinio-paleidimo-komisija/

Photo by Headway (www.unsplash.com).