Lithuanian judges and prosecutors are part of an organised gang, taking property from innocent people

0

Lithuanian judges and prosecutors are part of an organised gang, taking property from innocent people
llredakcija@gmail.com 20 February, 2024 0

Aurimas Drižius

Evidence is mounting that a well-organised criminal gang of judges operates in the Vilnius City District Court and the Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office, falsifying cases and taking valuable assets from people who have committed no crime.

Karolis Maldeikis (photo above), a Vilnius resident who owned several wine shops in Vilnius and a company called Primo Vino, selling wine.
Judge Lidija Valentukonytė of the Vilnius City District Court (photo above, middle) ordered him to pay 18,000 euros in damages to AD REM Transport, a transport company owned by former prosecutor Stanislav Kozel. Maldeikis allegedly ordered a shipment to England in which smuggled cigarettes worth 55 000 pounds were found. Judge Valentukonytė ordered Maldeikis to pay for the damage he allegedly caused to the transport company.
The man was thrown out on the street, his flat was sold and his life and business ruined.
Only now has it emerged that this whole case is a forgery by Judge Valentukonytė. Possibly.
Five years later, Mr Maldeikis was able to prove that someone had used his personal data to order that smuggled cargo.
Even though Maldeikis has proved that he had nothing to do with the smuggling and that the damages awarded against him were unlawful, Valentukonytė’s colleagues are as united as a brick wall: they refuse to reopen the case.
Even more ironically, at the same time that Valentukonytė was hearing AD REM’s lawsuit, the Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office was investigating the smuggling and Maldeikis’ forged signature.
„AD REM employees confirmed that they knew that other persons had ordered the smuggled cargo on behalf of Karolis Maldeikis: „The witness Deima Stoškienė recognised Giedrius Sikorskis from the photographs presented to her. The witness explained that she recognised Giedrius Sikorskis because „<…> this person has ordered transport services from AD REM transport UAB on several occasions, and he has arrived several times with other persons. He has never made an order in his own name (the invoice was not in his name), as far as I remember he has made orders in the name of Aldas Miežutavičius, Karolis Maldeikis”.

Ironically, the transport company, which presents itself as „business gentlemen”, even though it knew that the smuggled corvette was not ordered by Mr Maldeikis but by Mr Sikorski, who presented himself in his name, has gone to court to claim damages from an innocent man.

https://www.vz.lt/transportas-logistika/2018/09/18/kompanija-kurioje-galioja-dzentelmenu-kodeksas

However, the prosecutor’s office denied Maldeikis access to this evidence for three years, until all his assets were expropriated and he was made homeless.
What is even more appalling is that the judges continue to act in an organised gang – Valentukonytė’s colleagues Judges Šiškauskienė and Abramovičius refuse to reopen Maldeikis’ case – as if the fact that Maldeikis’ signatures were forged is not enough, and that Valentukonytė herself knew this when she was dealing with the lawsuit against AD REM.

Someone committed a crime in my name, accused me

„In a word, I went to the police to report that someone had committed a crime in my name and had forged my signature,” Maldeikis said, „but when Valentukonytė dealt with the case, I told her that it was not my signature, but she refused to carry out an examination of the signature, instead writing that „the signature was not contradicted by any admissible evidence, and therefore it can be used to assume that it is the signature of Maldeikis”. That is why I was awarded the alleged damages, arrested and deprived of my flat. Although I thought it was some kind of mistake until I received the summons. Even though I had nothing to do with the incident, Valentukonytė heard the case within a month and a half, and fully upheld AD REM’s claim. Valentukonytė stated that I had ordered the smuggling and I had gone to the company, and she decided that I had committed a crime, even though no pre-trial investigation had even been opened into the smuggling.
Then I went to court in another case because there was no contract between me and AD REM. The judge immediately said that an expert examination of the signature on the smuggled cargo was needed. Her conclusion was that the signature was forged. However, when she received this conclusion, Judge Šiškauskienė immediately dismissed the case and did not hear it – supposedly the same case had already been heard by Valentukonytė. If the expert had said that the signature was mine, the case would have been decided against me.
When I received the conclusion that the signature was forged, I applied to reopen the case, and that’s when the games started. The application was heard by Judge Vitalijus Abramovičius, who together with AD REM lawyer Sinkevičius plays football in the same team. Abramovich wrote that one forged signature is not enough, provide more evidence. Then I provided police expertise that all the signatures were forged, but Abramovich closed the case anyway.
In a word, then, when I went to the police with the conclusion that my signature was forged, they told me that there was not even a crime here. Then they said that all the signatures would have to be investigated, and again, it turned out that they were all forgeries. Then I applied a third time to reopen the case. Finally, I was granted access to the pre-trial investigation file, which says that the managers of AD REM identified Giedrius Sikorski, who is now deceased, as the person who ordered the smuggling. It is funny that these managers tell the police that they recognise Giedrius Sikorskis as the customer, but at the time they thought it was Karolis Maldeikis. And Valentukonytė investigated the case without any evidence.

The claimant, AD REM Transport UAB, applied to the court for an order that the defendant, Karolis Maldeikis, be ordered to pay the claimant’s losses of EUR 16 890,90 in connection with the performance of the contract of 12 July 2018 for the international carriage of goods by distance.
AR REm based its claim on the fact that contraband in the form of a cigarette case was found in the cargo allegedly ordered by Mr Maldeikis and transported to the United Kingdom.
Judge Valentukonytė upheld AD REM’s claim in full by a decision of 7 July 2020 and by a supplementary decision of 16 July 2020. The Vilnius Regional Court upheld Valentukonytė’s ruling after hearing Maldeikis’ appeal.
However, Judge Valentukonytė could not have failed to realise that her ruling was completely unfounded.
Maldeikis was unanimous in his position during the proceedings: he did not conclude the contract of carriage, he did not even know about the existence of the contract, and someone illegally pretended to be Maldeikis and used his personal data (name, surname and forged handwritten signature on the cash receipt order) in order to transport smuggled cigarettes to the UK with the cargo and to avoid liability for these illegal acts.
Knowing that someone had forged his signature and used his name to send the contraband to the UK, Mr Maldeikis contacted the police to request a pre-trial investigation.
On this basis, a pre-trial investigation was opened and is being carried out by the 2nd Criminal Prosecution Division of the Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office, on the grounds that his data and forged documents were used to place an order for the transport of a shipment of smuggled cigarettes.
By decision of the public prosecutor of 10 June 2020, the applicant Karolis Maldeikis was declared a victim in the pre-trial investigation. The decision states that „the pre-trial investigation has gathered sufficient evidence to reasonably believe that Karolis Maldeikis, born in Kaunas, Lithuania, has been accused of having committed an offence against a cigarette smuggler. 1987, the circumstances of which are being established.”
Mr Maldeikis has repeatedly applied to the prosecutor in charge of the pre-trial investigation for access to the pre-trial investigation material and to make copies of the material for use in the civil proceedings, but the prosecutor has only granted permission to make copies of a small part of the documents contained in the pre-trial investigation material.
Having received a small part of the pre-trial investigation material, the Applicant has already submitted requests to reopen the proceedings in this civil case, together with a request to obtain from the 2nd Criminal Prosecution Division of the Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office the entire material of pre-trial investigation No 02-2-00134-20, but these requests were rejected by the court. The Vilnius City District Court rejected the applicant’s requests to reopen the proceedings.
Finally, only on 23 May 2023. The Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office finally granted Maldeikis’s request and his representative was allowed access to all the materials of the pre-trial investigation and to use them in the civil proceedings.
After having access to all the pre-trial investigation material, it became obvious that a criminal offence had been committed against Maldeikis (however, the perpetrator of the criminal offence has not been identified and the pre-trial investigation is therefore suspended), but the losses caused by the same criminal offence had already been previously awarded to the victim, Mr Maldeikis, by a court decision that had become final.
„The pre-trial investigation has established that K. Maldeikis was not involved in the transport of the cargo, that the orders were placed on behalf of K. Maldeikis and that the smuggling was organised (carried out) by someone other than K. Maldeikis. Maldeikis, but other persons,” says Maldeikis’ lawyer Simonas Baltrušaitis, „these circumstances only came to light at the end of May 2023 (after obtaining access to the pre-trial investigation material and making copies of the material) and should be considered as newly discovered essential circumstances of this case, which should lead to the reopening of the proceedings.
According to Maldeikis Baltrušaitis, the following circumstances have become apparent following access to the entire pre-trial investigation material:

On 30 November 2020, the pre-trial investigation was supplemented by a report of identification of a person by his photograph, which stated that the witness Neringa Navickaitė had identified Giedrius Sikorskis from the photographs presented to her. The witness explained that she recognised Giedrius Sikorskis, „<…> I have seen him at the premises of AD REM UAB, he used to come to pay for orders placed in the name of Karolis Maldeikis, but I do not know who placed those orders. I can only confirm that Mr Sikorski used to pay in cash for the orders”;
On 1.12.2020, the pre-trial investigation was supplemented by a report on identification of a person by his photograph, which stated that the witness Deima Stoškienė identified Giedrius Sikorskis from the photographs presented to her. The witness explained that she recognised Giedrius Sikorskis because „<…> this person has ordered transport services from AD REM transport UAB on several occasions, and he has arrived several times with other persons. He has never made an order in his own name (the invoice was not in his name), as far as I remember he has made orders in the name of Aldas Miežutavičius, Karolis Maldeikis”;
On 1.12.2020, the pre-trial investigation was supplemented by a report on identification of a person by his/her photograph, which stated that the witness Čarita Petrikienė recognised Giedrius Sikorskis from the photographs presented to her and explained that she recognised this person because „<…> he is a person who used to pay cash for bills and this person was known to us at work in UAB AD REM Transport as Karol Maldeikis <…> he used to pay the bills for transport. <…> I knew him as Karol Maldeikis.
On 7 July 2020, the judgment in the present case was granted in full, and the court gave reasons for its decision:
13.1. „<…> although the defendant denies the cash payments, no evidence has been submitted in the case to prove that the payments were made by someone else using the defendant’s personal data illegally. The data in the applicant’s accounting documents that Karolis Maldeikis is the payer have not been contradicted by admissible evidence, and the court has no reason to disregard them in establishing the identity of the payer of the freight charges;
13.2. ‘<…> The defendant has not produced any evidence which contradicts the factual circumstances recorded in the written evidence submitted by the applicant concerning the placing of the order, the acceptance of the order for execution and the payment of the related services;
13.3. the applicant’s cash receipt dated 20 July 2018, Series ADP No 0000378, confirms that the defendant paid the said VAT invoice in cash at the applicant’s registered office.
All of the Court’s reasoning in this respect is contradicted by the new facts which only came to light in May 2023, after having access to the entire pre-trial investigation file. These circumstances indisputably confirm that Karolis Maldeikis did not place and pay for the disputed order, and that he could not be held liable for the losses suffered by the applicant, since the orders were placed and paid for by Giedrius Sikorskis under the name of Karolis Maldeikis.
Furthermore, the pre-trial investigation file was consulted and a power of attorney dated 15 September 2017 was found in which UAB Italiana LT, represented by Sigitas Zaikauskas, granted the rights of a beverage distributor to Giedrius Sikorskis. It should be noted that during the hearing of the case (hearing on 16 June 2020), the witness Sigitas Zaikauskas testified that he had only had a few contacts with Giedrius, as a potential client, but did not even know his name. The pre-trial investigation file contains a report of the Witness Interview on 16 June 2020, which records the testimony of the witness Sigitas Zaikauskas, which shows that he knew Giedrius Sikorskis, and that they had discussed the distribution of the products of UAB „Italiana LT”. Thus, for some reason, Sigitas Zaikauskas was inclined to conceal the fact that he knew Giedrius Sikorskis well, had cooperated with him, and had issued a power of attorney to Sikorskis to act on behalf of the company and to distribute the drinks. These circumstances are evidence of Mr Zaikauskas’s false testimony before the court in the civil proceedings.
Moreover, Sigitas Zaikauskas, who was questioned during the pre-trial investigation, stated that „<…> I received an e-mail to my e-mail address sigitas.zaikauskas@italianalt.lt from the e-mail address vintano.east@gmail.com. I do not remember the content of the email, but I understood that it was Giedrius’ email.”
The fact that Giedrius Sikorskis cooperated with UAB Italiana LT (and was undoubtedly acquainted with S. Zaikauskas) is also proved by another circumstance that has now come to light, i.e. the Protocol of Witness Interrogation of 24 January 2023, which is contained in the pre-trial investigation file, and which records the testimony of the witness Rosita Jakutienė. Ms Jakutienė, who is a shareholder of UAB Italiana LT and works for the company as Business Development Manager, testified that she has known Mr Sikorski for about 20 years, that he was planning to engage in the export of alcoholic beverages, that he has visited the premises of UAB Italiana LT on several occasions and that he has purchased alcoholic beverages.
These newly discovered circumstances confirm the Respondent’s arguments that the shipper was in fact not Karolis Maldeikis, but G. Sikorskis (either in his capacity as a representative of UAB Italiana LT or in his personal capacity as a natural person). The totality of the material in the civil case file and the material annexed to this application leads to the evidentiary conclusion that: (a) Giedrius Sikorskis was a representative of UAB Italiana LT acting under a power of attorney; (b) Giedrius Sikorskis purchased (received) the beverages from UAB Italiana LT, the transport of which was carried out by the plaintiff UAB AD REM transport; (c) the disputed cargo for the transport of the beverages was ordered by Giedrius Sikorskis (either in his capacity as a representative of UAB Italiana LT, or in his personal capacity as a private person), and was paid for by him in cash; (d) Giedrius Sikorskis was identified from photographs during the pre-trial investigation by the employees of AD REM transport UAB who handled the orders and their payment and was known and perceived within the company as ‘Karol Maldeikis’. The same employees also confirmed that Giedrius Sikorskis did not personally order any shipments, but acted under the name of other persons (Aldas Miežutavičius or Karolis Maldeikis).

Parašykite komentarą

El. pašto adresas nebus skelbiamas. Būtini laukeliai pažymėti *

0
    0
    Jūsų krepšelis
    Jūsų krepšelis tuščias