Can the prime minister mean another criminal record for the prime minister?

Some believe that everything will depend on whether the Special Investigation Service (STT) will open a pre -trial investigation. Others are waiting for the conclusions of the Chief Official Ethics Commission and a clearer position of the President. There are also those who think that the prime minister will avoid responsibility, because formally, he is only a shareholder of the said company, not the manager.

And what does the law say about it? Can this story have criminal consequences? Can the prime minister be threatened with another criminal record? Can shareholders be considered responsible for such transactions, or would the manager or an accountant be responsible anyway? And is it possible to control this story communicative – to explain to the voters so that they believe that the prime minister did nothing wrong?

Jonė conditioner Jonė Conditioner, Gintautas Bartkus and communication expert Mindaugas Lapinskas, talked about this on the News Radio Radio. In the show, a small businessman Ignas Pūknis shared his experience, who also participated in the same program to obtain a loan. According to him, the company associated with the Prime Minister received the loan unusually quickly.

So far the violations do not see

– Mr Bartku, if there were evidence that the company had somehow getting a loan faster than other companies, there would probably be a really great basis for doubting that everything was done legally?

– There may be reason to doubt, but it all depends on the documents provided. If all the documents were submitted on time, properly filled, maybe the decision was made faster. It is difficult to evaluate according to the information available now. In this story, I would distinguish between three law -related aspects. First, it is a prohibition on a member of the Seimas, the Minister, the Prime Minister to take up their duties and work in business or other institutions. That prohibition is laid down by the Constitution. The second aspect is the company’s desire to get a loan, that is, whether its actions are not an order. And the third aspect is the use of a loan for its intended purpose. Now there are reasoning that the loan may have been issued correctly, but may not have been used for its intended purpose. Each of these three legal aspects has one or another answer on how we should assess the situation – everything went legally or not.

– Does anyone who now publicly knows someone signals possible violations of the Criminal Code?

– In this case, we could talk about the use of a loan out of its intended purpose. This is provided for both civil and criminal liability. How do I understand civil liability in this case? If any bank would give any of us a loan and indicate for the purposes for which we need to use it and we would use to someone else, the bank could claim a loan immediately to repay and even pay a fine. When a loan, credit, support or grant was not used for intended purpose, criminal liability is threatened, but then additional criteria are provided. The first criterion – the loan was up to a certain amount, which is more than 10.5 thousand. and the second is serious damage, about 20 thousand. euros. If it was established that the loan was not used for its intended purpose and there are still these circumstances, then we could think of criminal liability. But today, I emphasize, there is certainly no reason to talk about criminal liability from the data we have.

Photo by P. Peleckis / BNS

– In such cases, the responsibility is probably not on the shareholders, but on the shoulders of managers and accountants? Can shareholders still be prosecuted?

– Usually it is the responsibility of managers or a legal entity, but certainly not shareholders. The shareholder could only be prosecuted if he or she was directly involved in the actions, for example, stated who the loan should be unlawfully used. Our lawyers speak – if the shareholder acted as a de facto manager. Of course, there are shareholders who are very active and indicate everything, but this is the exception, not the rule.

– Andrius Tapinas today writes that EU law professionals tell him that the Court has ruled that companies may be considered related if they are controlled by the same natural persons, even if there is no group or legal relationship between companies. Is it really and what would it change in this story? After all, the link between EMUS and Garnis is probably especially important.

– We should assess this circumstance in the aspect of the three moments I mentioned. The comment is probably related to the company’s aim of getting a loan. That is, whether such a company was able to get that loan or it could have been. It is important to say one thing. When such loans are made, very formal criteria are set. You can pick up their list and put the checkboxes you reset. Business often does that. Then the question naturally arises as to whether I can do something to meet those criteria. The biggest problem with such criteria is to be detected in a rejection. Let’s say there is a loan to support new companies. The question is what that new company is. Is the one just established? Or maybe one that starts a new business? Or maybe the one that has been established before the business who has not participated in business? Ilte’s criterion was also very formal – the date of establishment. If the company met the criteria and sought to fulfill it, we can hardly be acknowledged by any violation. Ilte’s responsibility to determine whether the conditions were met.

– As you can, based on legal knowledge – STT will start a pre -trial investigation or not?

– We do not have a lot of information, but I would like to point out the problem that has not been resolved for decades about the prohibitions on the Constitution I mentioned. The Constitution says that a member of the Seimas, the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has no right to work in business and commercial institutions. When the Seimas is elected, for example, a teacher, we resolve everything very quickly – he has to terminate the employment contract and leave school. But we still do not have a decision for situations where a member of the Seimas has shares. We should pay more attention to it. And in historically, STT in similar cases almost never had any investigation.

In communicative sense, everything is controlled

– Mr Lapinskai, when do you see the situation? Is the prime minister able to communicate the train that travels and travels here? Will we have to wait for the STT assessment or a clearer position of the president? Or maybe everything will calm down?

– It seems to me that Paluck communicates well. He attempts to sew participation in business. Everything is based on assumptions, hypotheses that he allegedly organized that preferential loan. He does not give up on this provocation. Seeing the objective communication criteria, the prime minister has a clear story, he tells very clearly, repeats the essential facts. Will he be able to convince the public? The politician must not convince her. It is enough for him to look right and does not violate the laws in the eyes of his voters and Paluck succeeds. If the new dramatic facts are not revealed, this whole story will remain a regular attempt to attach something to him. It all understands that there is no criminal stories.

Ž. Photo by Gedvila / BNS

– The most important thing is to look legally? Mr Bartkus said that in such cases, STT usually does not start research. But if you started? Then staying in the post would probably be difficult?

– I think the STT will have a rather accurate wording, and even if the investigation starts, first+ will be about the responsibility of the company’s administration. Not only will it be very reasonable to accuse the premiere that he was actively involved as a shareholder, but also evidence. Although it does not seem to have something very criminal, probably the prime minister has its own alibi. And if people don’t believe it couldn’t be in two places at the same time, it’s hard to do something. I would like to touch a more fundamental problem. It seems to me that from all this story we will take the idea that it is better to become a prime minister only for someone who has worked for a lifetime in the civil service, has neither brothers nor sisters, because a small bank can take out loans. You need to have no friends, live one finger and have been a ministry or municipal post for the last 28 years. In all other cases (if you had a business if your siblings, wife or husband had it) can be attached to something. We will probably wait for politicians who will come from the Ivory Tower.

– So we won’t have successful entrepreneurs in politics?

– Maybe we will have unsuccessful, for whom politics will be the last chance. Exactly the same story if your interviewed lawyer came to the post of Minister of Justice. It is always possible to attach something. If it turns out that the prime minister did not do anything, it would be the best lesson for us to understand that it is possible to be a member of the Seimas, to have a business, but not to participate in it. If we understood this, we could have stronger premiers, ministers, members of the Seimas. And now we prevent anyone who has shares in some company.

– But after all, part of the solutions can be removed, you can not participate in considerations, you can say that you are in private interests.

– Of course you can, but what would the next step in this story be? If the prime minister has taken a home loan from a bank, does it also have to leave the decisions? If any logistics company transports its company batteries, does it have to remove questions about the situation of foreign drivers? If we want to glue and sew stories, we can navigate them about the shareholder of any company.

Entrepreneur’s Comment: Seeing the oddities

– I was interested in two things. One thing is the speed of how quickly Ilte decided to grant the loan to the prime minister. And the other is the discrepancy between the requirements at the beginning of the loan application. We were clearly stated by telephone and in writing that everything had to be cleaned up, the authorized capital must meet the requirements of the Invega that year, that is, 10 percent. Property, and money must already be accountable in the balance sheet. We got all the way, in 2022. We started a loan in December. When we got everything up, it started: we were asked, we gave the answers, it took us about a month, even a little more, to get the first package. And the Prime Minister’s company handled everything in a month. For us, the whole process continued for six months and ended in 2023. in May. I have been in contact with other entrepreneurs, it took three months for some, although the business plan was clear. Of course, every situation is individual, but it is strange that some can arrange everything within a month.

Full Report of News Radio – In the video: