LSDP secretary appeals conviction in municipal expenses case

Lithuanian Social Democratic Party responsible secretary Justas Pankauskas has appealed his conviction in a case involving municipal expense claims, LRT reported. Pankauskas is also a member of the Central Electoral Commission.

His appeal asks the court to overturn the judgment, end the criminal proceedings, release him from criminal liability under a surety arrangement and cancel the criminal measure imposed on him, Alytus District Court administration secretary Jurgita Urbanavičiūtė told ELTA on Wednesday.

On October 12, Alytus District Court found Pankauskas guilty of embezzlement, abuse of office, document forgery and using a forged document. It handed him a combined fine of 4,000 euros and barred him for three years from being elected or appointed to positions in state or municipal institutions and their organisations or companies. The judgment has not taken effect because it was appealed.

The court found that, while serving on the Lazdijai District Municipal Council, Pankauskas falsified expense documents and embezzled more than 2,500 euros between April 15, 2019, and May 27, 2021. It said the offences were committed over an extended period to obtain personal financial gain and had undermined public trust in the council and caused substantial non-pecuniary damage to the municipal administration and the state.

Pankauskas admitted his guilt in court and said he had repaid the disputed sum. He asked to be released from criminal liability under a surety arrangement. However, the judge concluded that his admission was intended to improve his legal position rather than reflect genuine remorse, and did not treat it as a mitigating circumstance.

The Special Investigation Service found that Pankauskas submitted receipts paid for with other people’s bank cards, as well as fuel receipts paid for with the Social Democratic Party’s corporate card. Payments were made 71 times using 31 different cards, including five issued to legal entities. Prosecutor Darius Valkavičius opposed releasing Pankauskas under the surety of his father, questioning whether the father could be trusted because his receipts had appeared in his son’s reports and had led to reimbursements.