According to Šiauliai Court, the trial took place remotely using the video conferencing program ZOOM. Requests of process participants have been resolved.
At the court hearing, RMRačkauskas’ defense counsel stated to the court that he was acquainted with the additional material – data obtained during specific actions performed by the Criminal Intelligence, which had been provided by the state prosecutor at the previous court hearing.
The lawyer stressed that the material provided, he said, was incomplete and remained unclear when the criminal-sanctioned actions of the Criminal Intelligence were when the pursuit of his defense began. Among other requests submitted to the court, the mayor’s lawyer wanted the court to hear two specific officials of the Panevėžys Board of the Special Investigation Service (STT) named by him.
The defendants expressed support for such a request by a lawyer. According to the accused G.Maskoliūnienė’s lawyer, it is not clear whether the actions of the Criminal Intelligence were justified in this case at all.
The public prosecutor emphasized that the legitimate interests of the subjects of criminal intelligence could not be violated. According to him, STT officials should not be forced to break the law and disclose information that is not disclosed.
The prosecutor asked the court not to satisfy the request submitted by RMRačkauskas’ defense counsel. According to him, the court has already been provided with that part of the information which could have been declassified and which does not constitute a state secret. The public prosecutor emphasized that the legitimate interests of the subjects of criminal intelligence could not be violated. According to him, STT officials should not be forced to break the law and disclose information that is not disclosed.
The court satisfied the request of the lawyer of Panevėžys only partially, the court stated that the interrogation of STT officials would be excessive, therefore they will not be summoned to the court hearing. The public prosecutor is obliged by the court to provide data on the commencement of criminal intelligence actions, the factual basis.
The court informed the participants in the proceedings that a request had been received to allow the accused RMRačkauskas and G.Maskoliūnienė to go to an international meeting in Portugal from 19 to 25 October. This request clarifies that the mayor and his adviser are delegated to the Municipality. The participants in the trial did not object to the defendants’ posting.
All participants in the proceedings, including both defendants, have already been questioned in the case. The mayor’s interrogation required a total of two court hearings. The accused further denied his guilt. A break was declared in the case.
The accused could not comment on some of the details of the conversations because he simply did not remember them. He stressed, however, that he sees no criminal record in these conversations.
The interrogation of the accused started back in May. Initially, the relevant secretly recorded conversations were heard, after which the mayor answered questions from the public prosecutor and other participants in the trial. The accused could not comment on some of the details of the conversations because he simply did not remember them. However, he emphasized that he did not see any criminal in these conversations, according to the accused, he had always emphasized in various meetings that services purchased at the expense of the municipality could have nothing to do with personal political activity. RMRačkauskas called some of the statements of the prosecutor and the questions she asked the construction of interpretations.
The accused noted that the concluded public procurement contracts had not been challenged so far, the mayor called these contracts absolutely positive.
At the beginning of May, when the mayor’s interrogation was opened, before answering the questions of the participants in the proceedings, the accused told the court that he could only confirm his previous testimony – he does not admit his guilt as a civil servant neither the state nor Panevėžys city municipality suffered losses.
According to the accused, on the contrary, many positive changes are now taking place in city life. To the question of the prosecutor supporting the state accusation in the case about the relationship between him and adviser G.Maskoliūnienė, the mayor answered that those relations are official, and MV and he are connected only by business relations.
The prosecutor asked the mayor, what was his former role in the city municipality in organizing public procurement? The accused replied that he did not organize public procurement by the relevant municipal departments and persons. The public prosecutor also asked how documents related to public procurement that were found during the search were found in his office. In response to a question, the accused stated that he believed they could have been left by one of the procurement staff, but stated that he had not requested such documents himself.
The mayor claimed that he had not given any instructions directly related to public procurement. When asked by the prosecutor whether there was talk of public procurement in RMRačkauskas’ office, the mayor replied that various interviews were taking place in his office.
The mayor told the court that the proposals for strategic communication submitted by MV were attractive and valuable, which is why they were chosen. The prosecutor also asked the accused why there were no more participants in the public procurement – RMRačkauskas replied that the municipality had not violated the law in carrying out the low-value procurement. He did not deny that in one of the interviews MV had alluded to him that he would be able to offer his communication services in the upcoming mayoral elections.
The first of the accused in the case gave evidence to the Adviser to the Mayor of Panevėžys, and the court needed three hearings to hear her testimony. Giving testimony to the court, the defendant said he did not admit his guilt, saying that by doing nothing for his own benefit, all the work had been done for the benefit of the municipality.
The counselor could not remember all the details of the incident, so not wanting to make a mistake in answering the questions asked, he asked the counsel to listen to the video and audio recordings first.
The counselor could not remember all the details of the incident, so not wanting to make a mistake in answering the questions asked, he asked the counsel to listen to the video and audio recordings first. The interrogation of the accused took place in the prescribed manner: first the audio recordings of the accused’s conversations were heard, and then the defendant was asked questions. Such a process required more time, and the hearing of the accused required more hearings. After each episode of the secretly interviewed conversation, the prosecutor asked the accused G.Maskoliūnienė, but she could not provide her explanations in every case, the accused stated that she did not remember the content of the received documents. The counselor also replied about the quality of the recordings of the conversations.
According to the case, the mayor of Panevėžys, with the help of advisers, may have given illegal instructions to the employees of the city municipality administration. It is alleged that the aim was to make the company associated with MV the winner of the public procurement tenders in the field of publicity and communication.
It is also possible that the prices of services, the volume of purchased services and other details have been agreed with this person in advance. It was also agreed on further cooperation that Panevėžys City Municipality would continue to purchase consulting services from the company represented by Vilnius residents.
The criminal case, in which the pre-trial investigation was carried out by the Panevėžys Board of the Special Investigation Service (STT), prosecutors, was initiated in Šiauliai Regional Court in the summer of 2019.
Source: 15min.lt – suprasti akimirksniu | RSS by www.15min.lt.
*The article has been translated based on the content of 15min.lt – suprasti akimirksniu | RSS by www.15min.lt. If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!
*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.
*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!