Lithuanian court halves Pudževelis’s prison term

Lithuania’s Supreme Court has cut the prison sentence for former Kaunas District Municipality administration director Ričardas Pudževelis from four years to two, LRT reported. He was convicted of accepting bribes from construction company representatives, including building materials and work on his home.

The court ruled that Pudževelis must serve two years in prison immediately. It suspended the remaining two years for a period of two years, during which he must not leave the city or district where he lives without permission from the authority supervising him.

The court said the lengthy criminal proceedings, the 10 years since the offences, circumstances relating to Pudževelis and other penalties imposed on him warranted reducing the time he must serve. He was also fined 13,181 euros and ordered to forfeit 19,124 euros. The court said suspending the entire prison sentence would not be justified given the seriousness of the corruption offences.

The Supreme Court also ruled that prosecutors did not have to establish the precise contents or monetary value of a bribe to determine criminal liability and the severity of the penalty. It was sufficient to prove that the item or service was an unlawful reward and met the statutory threshold of 1 MGL. The court found that the covert investigative measures, though lengthy, were justified because the alleged scheme and the people involved emerged gradually.

Evidence in the case showed that Pudževelis used his position to secure benefits for himself and his wife. A company provided construction materials and work for their house, while gaining preferential opportunities to secure contracts and lease heat production facilities. The case also found that public procurement procedures were bypassed.

In May 2024, Klaipėda Regional Court sentenced Pudževelis to four and a half years in prison. Charges in the case were brought against eight individuals and a company. Four other individuals and the company Roalsa remain convicted of bribery and other offences. Lower courts’ decisions were otherwise left unchanged.