Category: Criminal law

A single comment on social media could end up in court 

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

On social media, it often seems like you can say anything. However, the reality is different—words shared in the public sphere can have very specific legal consequences. Julius Sakalauskas, an attorney with the law firm AVOCAD, says that in Lithuania, there are increasingly frequent cases where comments or posts on the internet become the subject of legal disputes in court. “The internet is not a free zone where you can say anything. Liability for words in the public sphere can be the same as in traditional media,” the lawyer emphasizes.

The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania stipulates that human dignity is protected by law. This means that the same rules apply on social media as in any other public space. According to the attorney, a person’s honor and dignity are violated when information that does not correspond to reality is disseminated about them, thereby damaging their reputation. In such cases, courts evaluate several key factors: whether the information was disseminated publicly, whether it relates to a specific person, whether it is untrue, and whether it demeans a person’s honor and dignity. “If all these conditions are met, the person who disseminated such information may face legal liability. It is important to note that even a single post on a social network can be considered public dissemination of information,” explains J. Sakalauskas.

Not all criticism is defamation

However, the lawyer emphasizes that not every sharp or critical comment is considered a violation. In a democratic society, people have the right to express their opinions, and freedom of expression is protected. “An opinion is a subjective assessment—for example, that someone’s actions appear unprofessional. However, a problem arises when an opinion that does not correspond to reality is presented as a fact,” says the lawyer. If a person claims that another person committed a specific act—for example, embezzled money—and this is not true, such a statement may already be considered a violation of honor and dignity.

Furthermore, an opinion that is unethical, dishonest, unsupported by any arguments or facts, or that omits certain facts may also violate a person’s honor and dignity and result in legal liability.

It is often assumed that only the person who wrote a comment is responsible for it. In practice, however, liability may extend further. “First and foremost, the responsibility lies with the author of the comment. However, in certain cases, it may also fall on the platform or website administrator if they are aware of clearly illegal content, tolerate it, and fail to remove it in a timely manner,” explains the attorney. This means that liability can also be joint and several, which is why most platforms actively monitor comments and respond to violations.

What should you do if false information is spread about you?

When faced with defamatory information, the most important thing is to respond quickly. According to the lawyer, the first step is to contact the author of the information or the platform and demand that the false information be removed or refuted. It is also possible to file a formal complaint and seek compensation for damages.

“If the information is clearly defamatory, you can also contact the police. And if an amicable resolution cannot be reached, the dispute goes to court,” says J. Sakalauskas.

The consequences of defamatory comments can be very real and tangible. Civil liability is most commonly applied—a court may order the removal of the information, require a retraction, and award compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. This may also include litigation and attorney’s fees.

“The amount of non-pecuniary damages depends on the nature of the information published and its dissemination. On the internet, this can be particularly extensive, so the impact on a person’s reputation can be very significant,” the lawyer emphasizes.

Cases in which a person is unjustly accused of committing a crime are viewed with particular severity.

Social media platforms are increasingly finding themselves in court

In Lithuania, there is a growing number of cases where social media posts become the subject of legal disputes. “We see many situations where politicians or individuals who consider themselves media representatives publicly accuse others of, for example, embezzling funds intended for aid. Such cases are treated strictly in court,” says the lawyer.

If it is determined that false information has been disseminated that defames a person’s honor and dignity—that is, violates that person’s rights—legal liability shall apply.

The lawyer has a simple but important piece of advice for all social media users. “Before posting a comment, ask yourself: could you say the same thing to someone face to face?” says J. Sakalauskas.

According to him, it is important to remember that there is a real person behind every profile, and carelessly shared information can have long-term consequences.

Criticism is both permissible and necessary, but it must be well-reasoned, respectful, and based on facts. If there is any doubt about the accuracy of information, it should be presented as an opinion rather than a fact.

“Social media is no longer a place where responsibility disappears—it remains just as it is in real life. Speaking responsibly online is the best way to avoid legal problems,” the lawyer concludes.

The public question: why the same crime but different punishment?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Judicial decisions - especially in criminal cases - are constantly debated in the public sphere. The public often asks: why does one person get, say, 12 years for a certain offence, while another gets only six, even though the nature of the crime seems identical? This question has been raised once again by the high-profile case of sexual violence against minors.

According to Egidijus Kieras of AVOCAD, different sentences for seemingly identical crimes are not a sign of judicial arbitrariness. On the contrary, he said, it reflects an individual application of justice based on the circumstances of the particular case, the logic of the law and a clearly defined methodology.

Average sentences - a guide for courts

Egidijus Kieras points out that under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC), each crime is punishable by a range of sentences - for example, murder can be punishable by between 7 and 15 years of imprisonment. However, this does not mean that all convicted persons automatically receive an "average" of 11 years. Courts look at the so-called average sentence - a mathematical point between the minimum and maximum sentence, which acts as a reference point. The court "steps" from this average to one side or the other, depending on the aggravating or mitigating circumstances found in a particular case.

What determines whether a sentence increases or decreases?

The court must look at the whole context of the crime, not just the name. Here are some examples. Aggravating circumstances that lead to a harsher sentence:

  • The offence has been committed repeatedly;
  • The crime was committed out of selfish motives;
  • Victim - a minor or vulnerable person;
  • The crime was committed by a group of people acting together.

Mitigating circumstances that may lead to a reduction of the sentence:

  • Guilty plea;
  • Sincere regret;
  • Cooperation with law enforcement;
  • Compensating or attempting to compensate for damages;
  • Influence of personal illness, addiction, psychological state.

Emotions vs. legal criteria

In a high-profile case of sexual violence against boys, the public is shocked not only by the crime itself, but also by what some consider a "too light" punishment. However, this case illustrates once again that a court cannot rely on emotions, but only on the facts and legal circumstances of the case. If a person has cooperated with law enforcement, has confessed, has shown remorse, and may have no previous convictions, all of this has legal significance. In this case, the sentence imposed, although it may have upset many people, was probably motivated by all the criteria set out in the law. Often in cases of this kind, the lawyer says, punishment is not the only element of the court's decision - probation supervision, registration in the sex offenders' register, therapeutic measures, etc. may be ordered.

When imposing a sentence, the court must give detailed reasons why it has imposed that sentence. The court's decision is not an opinion, but the totality of the facts analysed, the law and the assessments made. "However, the role of the public is also important in this process - not just to read the headlines, but to read the court rulings, to study the circumstances of the case, to understand the logic of the criminal procedure," emphasises Mr Kieras.

Changes in legal technique don't change the substance: the "average" hasn't gone anywhere

The amendment to Article 61(2) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which entered into force on 1 January 2024, abolished the previous obligation to calculate the sentence from the average. Until then, the law stated that, in the presence of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the court should focus on the average sentence, and move away from it depending on the weight of the circumstances. The amendment has made this wording more flexible, giving the court more discretion.

However, according to AVOCAD's lawyer Egidijus Kieras, actual case law shows that the "principle of averages" continues to be one of the main points of reference for sentencing:

"Yes, technically the imperative is no longer there, but in the structure of most sentences it is very clear that the courts are still taking an average approach. In terms of motivation, it seems that only the concept has disappeared, but not the principle itself", says Kieras.

This is particularly important from the point of view of legal interpretation. Consistency and transparency in sentencing requires a certain degree of methodological consistency. And while the wording of the law may change, the reasoning of the courts must remain sound, comparable and predictable. In other words, the idea of the "average" - as a reference point - remains alive in both professional judicial logic and academic doctrine. It is a part of the architecture of the law that cannot be so easily disconnected from the actual sentencing process, even if it is no longer formally part of the law. This situation reveals a broader insight: changes in legal technique do not necessarily change the substance of the law, as long as the logic remains the same in practice. This shows once again that case law is often more stable than the wording of laws.

Criminal law - accountability based on reasoning, not emotion

As Egidijus Kieras, a lawyer at AVOCAD, points out, criminal law in Lithuania is quite balanced, but its application requires not only professionalism, but also consistent public education. This depends not only on confidence in justice, but also on a healthier public opinion. "When you know how punishment is actually shaped, you are less inclined to shout 'the court is incompetent'," says Kieras. Different sentences for the "same" crime do not mean inequality - they reflect the principle of individual justice. Each person is unique, each case is different. Justice is not a mathematical exercise - it is a profound process in which both the law and the person matter.

The prohibition on the Court of Appeal ruling against a worse decision - what's worth knowing about it?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

In the Lithuanian legal system, one of the fundamental values of justice is to ensure a fair and just trial. Of particular importance here is the principle of "non reformatio in peius", which ensures that a person who has appealed against a decision of a court of first instance does not suffer worse consequences simply because he or she has exercised his or her right to appeal. According to Domantas Velykis, a lawyer at AVOCAD, this principle is particularly relevant in criminal proceedings as well as in civil and administrative cases.

For example, in a criminal case, if the court of first instance sentenced a person to 2 years' imprisonment and the person appealed against the decision, the Court of Appeal may refer the case back to the trial court. However, even in that case, the court of first instance may not, on the basis of the above-mentioned principle, impose a sentence more severe than 2 years, unless expressly requested to do so by another party to the proceedings, such as the prosecutor. This principle protects the appellant from the negative consequences that could result from the mere exercise of the right to appeal.

AVOCAD's lawyer says that this regulation guarantees the appellant's right to appeal against a decision of the court of first instance that he considers unjust, without fear that the appellate court will make his position worse than that of the court of first instance.

"In assessing whether there has been a breach of this principle in relation to the appellant, it is necessary to establish whether the decision was worse than the one complained of. A decision which is more restrictive of a person's rights, more burdensome, etc., may be regarded as inferior. Importantly, this prohibition only applies when only one party to the proceedings appeals against the decision of the court of first instance," points out Mr Velykis

According to the lawyer, in civil proceedings, the exceptions to the prohibition of an inferior decision in the court of appeal must be interpreted very narrowly and can only be applied in those cases where a substantial public interest established in the particular case clearly so requires, in particular if the proceedings in the court of appeal are terminated without referring back to the court of first instance for a fresh decision.

The legal framework provides that the limits of an appeal may be exceeded only where the public interest so requires and the rights and legitimate interests of a person, society or the State would be prejudiced if the appeal were not exceeded.

"The position of the court practice is that the mere fact that the court of first instance misapplied legal norms when adopting the procedural decision appealed against cannot, by itself, justify either overstepping the limits of the appeal, or, consequently, worsening the appellant's legal position in the court of appeal," emphasises Domantas Velykis.

However, according to the lawyer, it is important that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has clarified that the appellate court must not be limited by the limits of the appeal in such a way that its decision would be fundamentally unfair and that this would violate constitutional values. The principle of proportionality is therefore also very important here.

It is important to note that the case-law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania did not consider as a violation of the prohibition to adopt a worse judgment a situation where both parties to the proceedings lodged appeals, but one of the parties contested only the allocation of the costs of the proceedings, and the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, even though the party that had contested the allocation of the costs of the proceedings had not raised such a claim, but did not disagree with the conclusions of the Court of First Instance, which led to the relevant decision on the allocation of the costs of proceedings, i.e. it also put forward arguments as to why the judgment of the Court of First Instance is not, in principle, correct.

The prohibition against an appellant being adversely affected is relevant to all parties to the proceedings, both in considering the future strategy of the case and the arguments and claims to be put forward in the preparation of the appeals, and in assessing the judgments of the courts of appeal and the possibility of bringing cassation appeals on the basis of a breach of this principle. "This principle is particularly important in protecting individuals from possible abuse of the judicial system or disproportionate decisions. Knowledge and understanding of this principle is important not only for legal professionals, but also for all members of society, as it helps to ensure confidence in the legal system and encourages active participation in legal processes. Only an informed and aware citizenry can effectively defend its rights and contribute to strengthening the rule of law," he stresses.

 

After the tragic loss of a loved one due to the fault of another, it is essential to deal carefully with compensation issues 

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Life is varied, not only in its joys and sorrows, but also in the extremely painful events that have lifelong consequences. Dainius Antanaitis, attorney at AVOCAD, discusses the issues of damages and loss of earnings in very painful cases where a spouse is killed in a traffic accident due to the fault of the other .

According to the lawyer, it is natural that, in the state of mind caused by such an event, the relatives of the deceased, including the spouse, are least concerned about the legal aspects of the consequences caused by the perpetrator. "However, these issues have to be dealt with very carefully. And here I would like to draw attention not to the criminal proceedings against the perpetrator who caused the accident, but to the damage caused by the death of the spouse who was not at fault for the accident," says Dainius Antanaitis.

The death caused by a road accident normally results in both material and non-material damage to the person whose spouse has been killed, which must be covered by the compulsory third-party liability insurance of the perpetrator's motor vehicle. As regards damage to property, it should be noted that it is usually understood as destruction or damage to property, loss, expenses. For example, this could be funeral expenses. However, here the lawyer reminds us of another type of property damage - loss of income.

The case law on the loss of income of a spouse due to the death of the other spouse in a road accident is quite detailed and very broad, says Dainius Antanaitis, but the key points to be aware of are:

  • Civil liability is generally imposed for damage caused, but civil liability can also be imposed for future damage that can be proven;
  • the established case-law and the presumption in law that the deceased spouse has contributed to the maintenance of the family, it can reasonably be assumed that the surviving spouse loses the share of the future income that would have accrued to the surviving spouse had the other spouse not died;
  • the loss of income is calculated as follows: determine how long the deceased spouse would have been expected to live according to the average life expectancy of the person as published by the Department of Statistics and add together the deceased spouse's total average monthly earnings and any monthly pensions he or she would have received until the end of his or her expected life expectancy, and divide the result by half.

"In simple terms, the spouse of the person killed in the accident has the right to claim from the perpetrator's compulsory third-party motor insurance ½ of the income that the deceased spouse would have earned if he or she had not been killed, i.e. up to the end of the average life expectancy," notes the AVOCAD lawyer.

However, Dainius Antanaitis, a lawyer, points out that if a middle-income earner is killed in a road accident 10 years before retirement, for example, adding up all the earnings up to the age of retirement, plus the pensions he would have received up to the end of his life expectancy, and then dividing it by two, would give a quite significant sum. Not only that, but if you add the amount of non-pecuniary damages on top of that, which can also be quite significant, the insurer may have to pay quite a lot of money to the spouse of the victim.

Naturally, insurance companies don't always pay the amount demanded without agreeing to it or part of it. In this case, the injured party should seek justice in court. "Neither the person nor the insurer can be 100% sure which way the scales of justice will tip in any particular case. Therefore, litigation does not sound attractive to either of them. And here the insurer can offer a "compromise". For example, an agreement whereby the insurer agrees to pay a solid amount of non-pecuniary damages, but in this agreement the person already refuses to claim another solid amount from the insurer - the loss of earnings," the lawyer points out an important legal point.

He said that, although case law makes it reasonable to conclude that a person is likely to recover both consequential damages and loss of earnings, a risk-averse person may choose to take the sparrow's hand by signing a contract with the insurer to resolve the issue permanently.

However, it happens that a person may realise that signing the contract was a mistake, which may have been due to a variety of reasons (e.g. emotional experiences due to the death of their spouse, lack of knowledge, etc.) and that the loss of income, which they would probably have been able to claim, is very much needed in the household and in the various life worries that they have been left with alone after the death of their spouse.

Therefore, the lawyer says, it is important to think carefully before deciding whether to sign such a compromise agreement with the insurer and to consult a lawyer if you still have doubts.

Lover, cheat or business partner? How can I protect my investment in a jointly created business?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

A scandal centred on a famous sports trainer has been in the public domain lately. He has, according to women, defrauded a number of them and extorted significant sums of money, of varying amounts, under the guise of romantic promises and relationships.

The latter story is illustrative of the many variations of The Tinder Swindler. However, in the "Lithuanian" case, the situation is more ingenious - the protagonist not only took advantage of a romantic relationship to swindle the money, but also promised to use it for a specific purpose - to set up a joint business with the victims.

The story ended with no love, no money and no promised business, and the victims were left with financial losses and non-material damage to their mental and emotional health. According to publicly available information, the law enforcement authorities refused to open a pre-trial investigation.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that the money was extorted not only by promising to set up a business together, but also by the fact that such plans were laced with promises of love, which objectively makes it more difficult for the victims to weigh up the situation, the risks and the dangers logically.

So what legal options are there to protect your investment in a jointly created business?", says Karolina Laura Briliūtė, Associate at AVOCAD .

First of all, the decision of the law enforcement authorities to refuse to open a pre-trial investigation is not surprising in this case. It is likely and most similar to the fact that a pre-trial investigation for fraud was requested. According to the Criminal Code, fraud is the fraudulent acquisition, evasion or avoidance of an asset or property right, or the avoidance or cancellation of a financial obligation, for the benefit of oneself or others. Fraud is used with the intention of deceiving the owner, manager or person in whose possession the property is located, who, having been deceived, voluntarily transfers the property or property right to the perpetrator, believing that the latter has the right to receive it, or cancels the perpetrator's property obligation.

Although the situation is superficially similar to fraud, it should be borne in mind that criminal law and criminal sanctions are only used as an ultima ratio (last resort), when other legal means of restoring the right violated have been exhausted. Moreover, in the present case, the victims themselves freely contributed money to the perpetrator, incurred expenses for the purchase of various items, and rented premises for the filming and production of the content, and these circumstances should therefore be viewed unfavourably in the context of the decision on the application of criminal measures.

Moreover, circumstances such as shared holidays, travel and spending money together, in the eyes of the law enforcement authorities, are reasonably more likely to suggest a purely romantic relationship, where one of the persons invests more money in the relationship than the other. However, in such a case, there is naturally no legal basis for interfering in the relationship between the two individuals.

Firstly, if the other person proposes to start a business together and asks for funding to start the business (for example, as in this case, to buy certain clothes, items, film equipment, rent an apartment), the relationship is similar to a legal relationship of joint activity.

A joint venture/partnership agreement commits two or more persons (partners) to act jointly, by pooling their property, labour or knowledge, for a specific purpose or activity that is not contrary to the law. The legal form of a joint venture/partnership agreement can take a wide variety of civil relationships - any commitment between several persons, not contrary to law, to engage in a common activity or to pursue a common purpose by cooperating in a joint activity or to pursue a common purpose by cooperating in the use of property or intangible assets. The essential features of a joint venture agreement are: the co-operation of the property, intellectual or labour resources (contributions) of several persons; an obligation to use the co-operated resources to act jointly; and a common purpose and interest of the participants in the development of an activity or the pursuit of an objective.

It should be borne in mind here that a joint venture/partnership agreement must be in writing and, in cases provided for by law, in notarial form. Failure to comply with the form of the agreement renders the agreement null and void. Therefore, in cases where a romantic or other entity proposes to invest finances in a joint venture, it is advisable to initiate the signing of such an agreement, thus protecting oneself against potentially fraudulent actions.

In practice, there have been cases where a court has been asked to declare that a joint venture relationship existed between the parties and that a joint venture agreement had been concluded (certain documents existed, but were not formalised as a single contract). The courts refused to uphold such a claim without finding that there was a unanimous and purposeful intention of the parties to establish and develop a business relationship. Such interpretations only confirm that, even in a romantic relationship, the risks should be weighed and the contract should be drafted in a way that best reflects the intention of the parties in order to best protect the investment.

Finally, if the worst-case scenario were to be the case, where money was invested, but the love ended and the joint venture did not materialise, it is considered that the injured party would be able to rely on the defence of unjust enrichment.

According to the Civil Code, a person who, without legal justification, has acquired by his own acts or otherwise, intentionally or negligently, what he could not and should not have received, is obliged to return it to the person at whose expense it was acquired, except for the exceptions set out in this Code. A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another person without legal justification shall be liable to compensate the latter for damages to the extent of the unjust enrichment.

These rules give effect to one of the fundamental principles of civil law - that no one can be enriched at the expense of another without a basis in law or contract. At the same time, it implies the right to recover from another person what he has unjustly saved or otherwise benefited at the expense of the creditor. In order for the obligation to repay to arise, the person must first have acquired the property without legal justification, i.e. the receipt of the object or money cannot be justified either by law or by a transaction.

In summary, for this remedy to be effective, the person must be prepared to prove that he or she has incurred the expenditure (buying things, renting an apartment, renting a car, etc.), not for romantic purposes, but as a result of material misrepresentation and deception, in the hope that he or she will derive a benefit from the transfer of the money, in this case, the proceeds of the joint business. It is well known that the law does not interfere in the personal (romantic) relationships of individuals, so the person who loses the funds must also be prepared for the risk that the courts may decide that the expenses were incurred in the interests of the couple and not award such losses.