S. Malinauskas criticized a public statement made by S. Skvernelis, arguing that characterizing a violation of a detainment order as merely “formal” is misleading.
According to Malinauskas, such language is inaccurate, drawing a parallel to traffic violations where a transgression is definitive, rather than merely formal. He suggested that S. Skvernelis might have violated restrictions concerning communication with specific individuals, notably the other suspect in the case, former adviser Agne Silickaite.
Malinauskas highlighted the significance of the gagging order imposed on S. Skvernelis within the parliament. Prosecutors suggest this order represents a key connection between the parliamentarian and the corruption scheme under investigation, positing that financial transactions may have been channeled through it.
Furthermore, Malinauskas pointed out that A. Silickaite is also reportedly subject to an electronic gag order, according to prosecutors. The discussion centers on the alleged breach of legal constraints involving S.
Skvernelis. Malinauskas maintained that the nature of the alleged violation—specifically regarding communication bans—is straightforward. The focus remains on whether S.
Skvernelis violated the terms of his detainment, particularly in relation to the restricted contact with Ms. Silickaite, whose involvement is linked to the broader corruption investigation.
Topics: #malinauskas #skvernelis #violated
