Lithuanian activist requests STT probe into Sinkevičius’ legal fees in “čekiukai” case

Public figure Andrius Tapinas has filed a request with Lithuania’s Special Investigation Service (STT) to assess whether Mindaugas Sinkevičius, leader of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, used lawful funds to cover his legal expenses in the so-called “čekiukai” (vouchers) case, LRT reports.

In a Facebook post, Tapinas stated that Sinkevičius has yet to provide evidence that he personally covered the legal costs. He noted that after two years, no proof has been submitted, prompting him to ask the STT to evaluate the circumstances for potential signs of criminal activity and, if justified, launch a pre-trial investigation.

Tapinas cited a journalistic investigation suggesting that Sinkevičius’ declared income makes it unlikely he could have paid the legal fees himself. The case involved representation by Arūnas Petrauskas, a partner at the high-end law firm Ellex Valiūnas. Tapinas estimated the legal costs at between €40,000 and €50,000, while Sinkevičius’ 2023 financial declaration listed only €16,800 in cash.

According to the investigation, hourly rates at Ellex Valiūnas for a lawyer of Petrauskas’ level range from €250 to €400. Given the case’s complexity and duration across multiple court instances, Tapinas suggested the total legal expenses could have reached €40,000–€60,000. As mayor of Jonava, Sinkevičius earns approximately €3,200 per month.

Tapinas also highlighted connections between Ellex Valiūnas and Jonava’s municipal companies. In September 2023, Sinkevičius hired Petrauskas for the “čekiukai” case. The following month, Jolanta Gumaniukienė, a former advisor to Sinkevičius, became the new head of Jonavos Vandenys (Jonava Water), a company represented by Ellex Valiūnas. In December 2023, Jonavos Vandenys initiated a €600,000 legal dispute with Achema, represented by the same law firm. The case concluded in autumn 2025 with a settlement agreement.

Last year, Lithuania’s Supreme Court ruled that Sinkevičius’ actions in the “čekiukai” case did not constitute criminal liability. The Court of Cassation found that lower courts had misapplied criminal law, wrongly convicting Sinkevičius of abuse of office, document forgery, and embezzlement. The criminal case against him was subsequently terminated.