Lithuanian Mayor Violated Ethics Law, Faces Criminal Charges

Šiauliai Mayor Artūras Visockas has been found by Lithuania's Chief Official Ethics Commission (VTEK) to have improperly mixed public and private interests. The commission determined that Visockas violated the Law on Harmonization of Public and Private Interests when he decided the salary for Tomas Petreikis, the director of the municipal company Šiaulių šviesa.

VTEK's investigation revealed that Visockas had a relationship with Petreikis that should have been declared. "The commission's assessment is that such a relationship between individuals creates a conflict of interest, and A. Visockas should have declared these circumstances, and in a situation where a decision needed to be made, should have recused himself," said VTEK Deputy Chairwoman Virginija Aleksejūnė.

“

Having assessed the circumstances, the commission concluded that A. Visockas violated the Law on Harmonization of Public and Private Interests.

The investigation into the mayor's conduct began in late March. Visockas signed the order regarding Petreikis's salary, variable part, and bonus in May of the previous year. The probe aimed to determine if the mayor had a private interest in the decision and if his private interest declaration was timely and accurate.

Adding to the legal scrutiny, Visockas is currently involved in a criminal case where he faces charges of influencing a witness, specifically Tomas Petreikis. According to the investigation, the mayor allegedly sought to prevent Petreikis, the former director of Šiaulių šviesa, from telling the truth to investigators from the Special Investigation Service (STT). Prosecutors allege Visockas attempted to influence Petreikis to provide false testimony, coordinated with the mayor, and conceal significant information. This criminal case, which also implicates two other individuals, has been transferred to the Šiauliai Regional Court.

“

The commission's assessment is that such a relationship between individuals creates a conflict of interest, and A. Visockas should have declared these circumstances, and in a situation where a decision needed to be made, should have recused himself.