Article 291(2) of the CC exempts from criminal liability an alien who arrived in Lithuania unlawfully with the purpose of exercising the right to asylum.
Article 5(3) of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens provides that the Migration Department must, within 48 hours of the submission of the application, adopt a decision to admit the asylum seeker into Lithuania.
The legal position of the individuals in this story is determined by a single circumstance: whether the apprehended person actually lodged an asylum application, as it is precisely this that, under Lithuanian law, changes his status from that of a person who unlawfully crossed the border to that of an asylum seeker. A Russian citizen who arrived by the Neman River within the boundaries of the Pagėgiai Municipality and requested political asylum was returned to Russia, which means that the state authorities either assessed his application as unfounded or did not adopt a decision to admit him into the country. The precise legal question here is twofold: first, whether the unlawful border crossing in this case constitutes a criminal offence under Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC), and second, within what time limit and under what procedure the Migration Department must examine an asylum application under Article 5 of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens. If the purpose of seeking asylum were recognised, Article 291(2) of the CC prohibits imposing criminal liability on an alien who arrived unlawfully with the sole purpose of exercising the right to asylum.
Article 4(2) of the Law on the State Border and Its Protection provides that the external border at border waters may be crossed only at places designated in international agreements, and Article 4(3) obliges those crossing to hold valid identity documents — a person arriving by the Neman River without undergoing checks at a checkpoint violates these conditions. Such a crossing without the purpose of seeking asylum constitutes a misdemeanour under Article 291(1) of the CC, punishable by a fine, arrest, or imprisonment for up to two years. Where an asylum application is lodged, Article 5(2) and (3) of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens provide that such a person is not yet deemed to have entered the territory of Lithuania, and the Migration Department must, within 48 hours of the submission of the application, adopt a decision to admit the person into the country and accommodate him in accordance with the procedure established by Article 79. A decision not to admit or the rejection of the application opens the way for return to the state from which the person arrived. The contrast is illustrated by the case mentioned in the report: a 20-year-old who unlawfully crossed the border without lodging an asylum application was sentenced by the court to three months' detention. If a person were to cross the border negligently, Article 537 of the Code of Administrative Offences, rather than the CC, would apply — a fine of EUR 70 to 140; however, an intentional crossing of the water border is classified as a criminal offence. In additionally assessing whether the person was transporting goods, the provisions adjacent to Article 291 of the CC would be examined: unlawful transportation of persons (Article 292 of the CC, up to eight years' imprisonment where motivated by self-interested purposes) and smuggling under the provisions of Article 30 of the CC, where goods exceeding 250 MGW (minimum monthly wages) in value are not presented to customs at the border. The basis for confiscating property附加 to the apprehension, such as the means of conveyance, would be Article 72(2) of the CC — an instrument or means of a prohibited act is regarded as property subject to confiscation.
The practical consequences for the returned Russian citizen: he loses the opportunity to remain in Lithuania, and if he were to attempt to cross the border again without the purpose of seeking asylum, he would face the risk of criminal liability under Article 291(1) of the CC, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment. Persons who provide accommodation to such undocumented aliens face liability under Article 539 of the Code of Administrative Offences — a fine of EUR 70 to 600, or EUR 600 to 850 in the event of a repeat offence. The procedure will proceed as follows: the State Border Guard Service continues examining the circumstances of the border crossing, and if signs of the transportation of goods or organised smuggling were established, a pre-trial investigation under Article 291 or 292 of the CC would be initiated.
[TEISINIS_KLAUSIMAS] The regulation was initiated by the Government (upon submission by the State Border Guard Service) in response to the emergency situation arising from the mass influx of foreigners and to practical problems in the application of the Law on the State Border and Its Protection. The aim is to ensure effective border protection and control, to prevent abuse of the border management and asylum systems, and to manage migration flows effectively, including the possibility of refusing entry to foreigners who cross the border irregularly. The principal tension identified in the committees' conclusions concerns the compatibility of such provisions with the international protection directives (2013/32/EU, 2013/33/EU) and with the rights of asylum seekers, since the refusal of entry applied on an individual basis restricts access to asylum procedures, notwithstanding the exceptions provided for persons fleeing war, aggression and persecution. [TEISINIS_PAGRINDAS] [PRAKTIKA] [TIKSLINIMAS] [PRAKTINE_REIKSME]
Correction. A loss of EUR 820 most likely corresponds to property of low value, so the act may be classified as a criminal misdemeanour under Article 182(4) of the Criminal Code, which provides for milder sanctions. The practical consequence of such a classification is the simplified procedure applicable to misdemeanour cases.
Under Article 182(5) of the Criminal Code, a person is liable for offences under paragraphs 1 and 4 only upon the complaint of the injured person, an application by their lawful representative, or a demand by the prosecutor.
Property subject to confiscation — an instrument, means, or result of a criminal act — belonging to the offender must, under Article 72(3) of the Criminal Code, be confiscated in all cases.
The pre-trial investigation initiated by the Tauragė County Chief Police Commissariat means that a suspect, once identified, faces liability under Article 182 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (fraud), as the act corresponds to the element of "by deception, for one's own benefit or the benefit of others, acquired another person's property." The victim's loss amounts to EUR 820 for cryptocurrency paid between 12 and 14 September but never received. The precise legal question is under which paragraph of Article 182 the act is qualified: this depends on whether the EUR 820 amount falls within the statutory size thresholds for ordinary, large-value, or very large-value property; however, these thresholds are not reflected in the sources provided, so the specific paragraph cannot be determined. An important practical provision is Article 182(5) of the Criminal Code: if the act were qualified under paragraph 1 or 4, the person would be liable only upon the complaint of the injured person, an application by their lawful representative, or a demand by the prosecutor; here, a complaint was evidently filed, since the investigation has already been initiated. If the commission of the offence were proven to exhibit the features of an organised group, paragraph 3 would apply, with imprisonment of up to eight years — this is a distinct qualifying avenue independent of the amount of the damage.
The evidentiary focus turns to the fact of deception (mental coercion): the scheme described by the police — a counterfeit exchange website, the role of the "broker," the conversion into ethers and their transfer to the fraudster's designated crypto account — corresponds to the structure of Article 182, under which criminal liability is satisfied where property is acquired by deceptively inducing the victim to hand it over. The investigation is being conducted by the Tauragė County Chief Police Commissariat in pre-trial proceedings; its task is to identify the suspect, establish the extent of the damage caused and the qualifying paragraph, and, upon completion, forward the materials to the prosecutor, who will apply to the court. Article 182(6) of the Criminal Code provides that legal persons are also liable for offences under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 — this becomes relevant if it emerges that the "brokerage company" was in fact a fictitious structure rather than a distinct corporate entity; the sources provided do not indicate the involvement of a legal person in this case. The victim's position is protected not only by the liability mechanism but also by the asset confiscation measure under Article 72 of the Criminal Code: property constituting an instrument, means, or result of a criminal act is subject to confiscation, and such property belonging to the offender must be confiscated in all cases. Article 72(4) permits confiscation of property also from other persons where they knew or ought and could have known that the property was used for a prohibited act, where the transaction is sham, or where the property was transferred to a family member or close relative or to a controlled legal person. Where property subject to confiscation has been concealed, consumed, or cannot be seized, the court shall recover from the offender a monetary sum corresponding to the value of such property — this is of practical significance, since the EUR 820 received was presumably transferred to a crypto account and may have been converted into other assets. The question of compensation to the victim is resolved through a civil claim within the criminal proceedings; however, the sources provided do not establish any separate compensation mechanism in this case other than confiscation to the benefit of the State. The Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests is inapplicable here, as the case is not connected with damage to the Communities' financial interests.
The practical consequences depend on the qualification: under paragraph 1, the sentencing range runs from community service to imprisonment of up to three years; under paragraph 2, up to six years; and under paragraph 3 (organised group), up to eight years. For the victim, the realistic prospect of recovering the EUR 820 is tied not to the punishment but to the confiscation of property derived from the criminal act, or the recovery of its value, should such property be identified. Since the suspect most likely acted online and may be abroad, the course of the investigation may depend on international cooperation — Article 8 of the Criminal Code provides that a person is liable under Lithuanian law for acts committed abroad under the relevant provisions only where the act is also criminal under the laws of the State in which it was committed. The foreseeable next procedural step is the transfer of the pre-trial investigation file by the Tauragė County Chief Police Commissariat to the prosecutor, who will decide whether to bring charges or terminate the case for lack of proof.
Article 182(5) of the Criminal Code provides that a person is liable for the acts under paragraphs 1 and 4 only upon the victim's complaint or a prosecutor's demand — here, the victim would be the municipality.
Under Article 62(2) of the Criminal Code, a sentence more lenient than that prescribed by law may be imposed where there are at least two mitigating circumstances and the pecuniary damage has been at least partially compensated.
By court judgment, M. Leliukas was held liable to repay more than EUR 6,500 to the municipality, with 5% annual interest awarded and litigation costs of approximately EUR 160; in other words, his pecuniary liability has already been formalised in civil proceedings. The precise question left open by this judgment is whether similar conduct (receiving reimbursements by presenting 12 different bank cards, of which only one belonged to the person himself, and non-personalised fuel receipts) constitutes a criminal misdemeanour or a criminal offence under Article 182 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (fraud) or Article 228 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power), since a civil award does not deprive the prosecution of the right to assess the criminal dimension of the conduct. Under Article 182(4) of the Criminal Code, fraud where the value of the acquired property does not exceed the threshold of minor value is classified as a criminal misdemeanour, while Article 182(5) provides that a person is liable for the acts under paragraphs 1 and 4 only upon the victim's complaint or a prosecutor's demand — here, the victim would be the municipality. If the value falls into a higher category, Articles 182(1)–(2) would apply; and if the conduct is to be assessed as abuse of official position for pecuniary gain, Article 228(2) would apply, whose sanction provides for a fine or imprisonment of up to seven years. For smaller amounts, Article 108 of the Code of Administrative Misdemeanours (petty fraud) may also apply, carrying a fine of EUR 90 to 400 where the value of the property does not exceed three sizes of base penalties and administrative penalties.
In the civil case, the court assessed whether the defendant had proven that the reimbursed expenses (fuel, rental of vehicles and communications) had been used exclusively for his activity as a council member; the burden of proof lay with the defendant, and he failed to discharge it. As regards the adequacy of documentation, the logic of municipal legislation is uniform: for example, paragraph 30 of the Description of the Financing of Non-Formal Education Programmes of Panevėžys City Municipality recognises the use of funds as proper only where the expenses are real and "supported by substantiating documents", and paragraph 34.7 expressly prohibits the financing of unsubstantiated expenses. Similarly, paragraphs 22–23 of the Description of the Procedure for Business Trips of Members of the Biržai District Municipal Council establish fuel consumption norms according to engine capacity (increased by 10% in winter) and require the submission of documents evidencing actual expenses — which shows that non-personalised fuel receipts do not comply with such a procedure. As to the criminal dimension, practice illustrates what sentencing matrix would operate if Article 228 of the Criminal Code were suspected: the Lithuanian Court of Appeal in case No. 2K-7-287/2009). In the judgment of Vilnius Regional Court in case No. 1-52-806/2025, a person who committed a minor-gravity act under Article 228(1) of the Criminal Code was held liable with mitigation under Article 62, having pleaded guilty and expressed sincere remorse (Article 59(1)(2) of the Criminal Code). These authorities would allow M. Leliukas, having repaid the EUR 6,500, to seek a more lenient sentence should criminal proceedings be initiated, but would not absolve him from the assessment of liability itself.
In practical terms, M. Leliukas is now subject to:
Under point 9 of the Provisions on the Implementation of the Law on the State Defence Fund, a financing agreement is concluded with the institution receiving the funds, which establishes the procedure for returning unused funds.
Article 13(1)(4) of the Law on Crisis Management and Civil Protection assigns the mayor's duty to determine shelter needs and organise their preparation as a function delegated by the State to the municipality.
In this situation, municipalities that have received State Defence Fund allocations for shelter infrastructure are confronted with the public duty statutorily assigned to them to ensure collective protection of the population, while the pace of fund utilisation (EUR 3.7 million out of EUR 30 million) indicates that this duty is not yet being discharged in full. The legal issue concerns financing management and the allocation of competences: who, and under what procedure, is obliged to prepare shelters, and by what instruments the Government may incentivise municipalities to use the allocated funds. The key provisions are Article 13(1)(4) and Article 28 of the Law on Crisis Management and Civil Protection of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Article 3(1)(5) and Article 3(1)–(2) of the Law on the State Defence Fund of the Republic of Lithuania.
Under Article 13 of the Law on Crisis Management and Civil Protection, the mayor exercises the function of civil protection organisation delegated by the State to the municipality, while under Article 141 of that Law municipal authorities and bodies must accumulate stocks of protection measures, the lists of which are established by the Government or an institution authorised by it. Shelter readiness is governed by an implementing act: the shelter manager must assess the condition of the shelter at least once a year and notify the mayor of deficiencies within 5 working days, and where necessary the shelter must be ready for use no later than within 12 hours. The financing chain:
The transitional arrangement proposed by the Ministry of the Interior toward continuous selection would tie the financing amount to population size: from EUR 165,000 to EUR 2.345 million per municipality. The technical requirements cited by municipalities derive from the shelter design and installation requirements established by the Minister of the Environment, and therefore their adjustment does not require legislative amendment. For new buildings, Article 28(4) establishes a direct design obligation: a building used for public needs in which more than 100 people may be present at any one time, or a high-rise residential building, must have a corresponding premises designed and installed.
Of greatest practical importance to municipalities is the return procedure for unused funds stipulated in the financing agreements: failure to implement projects means not only repayment but also a weaker performance on the indicator "proportion of the population provided with a place in shelters." For mayors, this entails continuous statutory responsibility: the obligation under Article 13(1)(4) does not depend on the availability of financing, and the annual shelter condition assessment and notification requirement and the 12-hour readiness requirement apply regardless of whether modernisation funds have been used. If the Ministry of the Interior's proposals are approved, municipalities could receive a predetermined maximum amount based on population size and reimburse works already commenced from their own funds. Monitoring point: the Government's and the Ministry of the Interior's decision on the continuous selection procedure, financing amounts by municipality size, and the allocation of the EUR 16 million modernisation funds; also await the visit of municipal representatives to Ukraine scheduled for early October.
Article 72(3) of the CC establishes that property subject to confiscation and belonging to the offender is confiscated in all cases, and that property obtained directly or indirectly from prohibited activity is also deemed subject to confiscation.
Under Article 42(6) of the CC, measures of criminal influence may be imposed in addition to the penalty in accordance with Article 67 of the CC, including the confiscation of property and the deprivation of the right to hold a particular job.
In this case, the essential legal consequences for the accused include not only imprisonment under the elements of criminal offences set out in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC), but also the compulsory, uncompensated confiscation of property to the benefit of the State, since the essence of the case lies in the alleged pursuit of personal gain through the appropriation of a public procurement project worth EUR 1.78 million. Mayor A. Visockas is charged with abuse of office, attempted fraud, and influencing a witness — these are criminal acts of a corrupt nature, which Article 2(2) of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption defines as the abuse of office or powers for the purpose of obtaining benefits for oneself or another person. The precise legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the conduct of the accused meets the elements of criminal offences under the CC and what penalties and measures of criminal influence, including confiscation of property, may be imposed; this is to be determined under Article 2(4), Article 42, and Articles 67 and 72 of the CC.
Under Article 2(1) of the CC, a person is liable only under the law in force at the time the act was committed; therefore, the acts planned in 2020 are assessed under the version of the CC in force at that time. If the charges are proven, then under Article 42(1) of the CC, penalties for a criminal offence may range from community service to imprisonment, and under Article 42(6), in addition to the penalty, one or more measures of criminal influence may be imposed in accordance with Article 67 of the CC. Article 67(2) of the CC lists among such measures both the confiscation of property and extended confiscation of property, as well as the deprivation of the right to hold a particular office or to engage in a particular activity. Article 72(2) of the CC provides that the instrument, means, or result of prohibited activity is subject to confiscation, and a result is recognised as any property in any form obtained directly or indirectly from the activity; Article 72(3) of the CC establishes that property subject to confiscation and belonging to the offender is confiscated in all cases. Article 72(4) of the CC permits the confiscation of property also from another natural or legal person where that person knew or ought and could have known that the property would be used for prohibited activity, or where the property was transferred under a sham transaction to a family member, close relative, or legal entity controlled by the offender or the offender's close relatives. The procedural stage of this case concerns the reading in court of witness testimony given to STT officers during the pre-trial investigation, and the review of pre-trial restraint measures.
The real consequences for the accused range from penalties under Article 42 of the CC to the confiscation of property under Article 72 of the CC, which may also reach property belonging to related persons or companies if the circumstances set out in Article 72(4) of the CC are established. For the mayor, there is the additional practical risk of loss of office: criminal acts of a corrupt nature within the meaning of Article 2 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption and related information may be used to impose accountability measures, and Article 33(4) of the Law on the Civil Service provides for removal from office as a disciplinary sanction for a gross breach of official duties. For the municipality and public procurement participants, it is relevant that the confiscation regime may reach property obtained indirectly from the activity; accordingly, the economic outcome of the EUR 1.78 million project may be directed to the benefit of the State.
Two separate incidents recorded in Kėdainiai on 17 September — a threat in the village of Pašušvys and drunk driving on Skroblų Street — fall into different categories of criminal liability and will be assessed under different provisions of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC). The precise legal question regarding the person who made the threat is whether his act is to be qualified under Article 284 of the CC (disturbance of public order) or under Article 145 of the CC (threat to murder or to cause serious harm to health) — this is determined by the nature of the threat and its credibility. As regards the driver, there is no question: a concentration of 1.63 per mille clearly exceeds the 1.51 per mille threshold established in Article 281¹(1) of the CC, and he therefore faces criminal liability for a criminal misdemeanour.
Pre-trial investigation has already been initiated against the man who made the threat (born 1997). If the threat was to murder or to cause serious harm to health, Article 145 of the CC applies; however, its paragraph 3 establishes a private-accusation condition — liability arises only upon the victim's complaint or a prosecutor's demand, or where the investigation has been initiated upon establishing signs of domestic violence. If the threat is to be assessed as a disturbance of public order, Article 284 of the CC applies, which provides for a graduated scale of penalties — from community service and a fine to imprisonment for up to two years. The report does not specify the content of the threat, so both qualifications are possible; in either case this is a criminal act rather than an administrative misdemeanour under Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO). The drunk driver will be held liable under Article 281¹(1) of the CC; the penalty range is a fine, arrest, or imprisonment for up to one year, and paragraph 2 provides that liability also attaches where the act is committed through negligence. As regards the detention of the person who made the threat, Articles 122(1)–(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) apply — grounds for detention exist only where there is a reasonable belief that the suspect will flee, obstruct the proceedings, or commit new crimes, taking into account family circumstances, permanent place of residence, and other relevant factors.
Realistic scenarios for further proceedings:
[TEISINIS_KLAUSIMAS] The regulation was initiated by Member of Parliament Ignas Vėgėlė. The aim was to ensure criminal liability for public threats, incitements, or calls to violence through the media against specific individuals — the existing law (Article 170 of the Criminal Code) covered only incitement of hatred against groups, while Article 145 of the Criminal Code required an actual threat. The initiator's argument was that such acts are highly dangerous but remained non-criminalised, and consequently neither the protection of individual rights nor the inevitability of liability was ensured. The Law Department assessed the draft bill from a legislative perspective, drawing attention to the principle of necessity — the requirement to demonstrate that the objective cannot be achieved by other means. [TEISINIS_PAGRINDAS] [PRAKTIKA] [TIKSLINIMAS] [PRAKTINE_REIKSME]
Because the blood alcohol concentration at the wheel was 2.92 per mille — above the 1.51 per mille threshold laid down in Article 281¹(1) of the CC — the act was classified as criminal rather than administrative liability under Article 422 of the AOC.
V. G.'s liability arose from two acts recognised in the judgment: bodily injury and driving while intoxicated. For the former, Article 140(1) of the Criminal Code (CC) provides for community service, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment of up to one year; for the latter, Article 281¹(1) of the CC provides for a fine, arrest, or imprisonment of up to one year. Because the blood alcohol concentration at the wheel was 2.92 per mille — above the 1.51 per mille threshold laid down in Article 281¹(1) of the CC — the act was classified as criminal rather than administrative liability under Article 422 of the Administrative Offences Code (AOC), which applies only to milder cases. The specific legal question in this case is how to aggregate the two penalties and what additional measures (disqualification from driving, confiscation) may be imposed under the new criminal record, which derives from the purpose of the Code established in Article 2(1) — no, Article 1(2) — of the CC, namely to establish penalties and measures of criminal influence.
The injuries were assessed as a minor impairment of health, and therefore Article 140 of the CC applies, since Article 138 of the CC (moderate impairment) provides for stricter ranges — restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment of up to three years — and would be considered only if loss of working capacity or long-term illness were established.
The arrest is to be served in the near term after the judgment enters into force, and the four-year driving ban is calculated from completion of the penalty; until it expires, V. G. can neither obtain nor use a driving licence.