Lithuania, while little known in the United States, is a pivotal state within the European Union and stands firmly against the territorial overreach of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s expansionist agenda. Despite gradual gains in public trust, the persistent allegations of judicial corruption in Lithuania cast long shadows of doubt.

In 2019, a bribery scandal implicated a coterie of senior judges, including one from the Supreme Court. In a turn of events that beggars belief, the legal proceedings against all twelve judges dissolved by 2021’s end.

One could rightly ask why corruption in Lithuania’s judiciary should matter to Americans, but the reasons are legitimate and important.

The United States has a history of substantial financial contributions to Lithuania and its fellow former Soviet Baltic states. Since it seceded from the Soviet Union, Lithuania has evolved into a respected strategic ally of the United States.

At the heart of the U.S.-Lithuania bilateral relationship is defense cooperation. From 2017 to 2022, the U.S. State Department allocated $279.75 million in Foreign Military Financing to Lithuania, complemented by an additional $8.9 million dedicated to upgrading the country’s military. Thus, American taxpayers have a vested interest in Lithuania’s governance.

Some analysts argue that the ghost of Soviet-era corruption still looms over Lithuania’s judiciary and certain sectors of its government, suggesting a government that has grown too comfortable with the country’s oligarchs and business magnates.

The convoluted legal affairs of the deceased Lithuanian magnate, Raimondas Karpavičius, offer a stark illustration of the corruption permeating the judiciary and some sectors of the government. Following his death, his brother Henrikas Karpavičius and a close acquaintance became the unexpected recipients of his estate, valued at €110 million, in a transfer that circumvented the more familiar probate processes and raised eyebrows about the nature of their sudden inheritance.

The estrangement between Raimondas and Henrikas, fueled by longstanding familial and business disputes, adds a layer of complexity to the situation. In the final months of Raimondas’ life, Henrikas, along with a companion of Raimondas, assumed control over the ailing tycoon’s estate.

The exclusion of Raimondas’ wife Audrone, who shared over four decades of marriage with Raimondas, and their son Rokas from his final days, orchestrated through the use of private security, signals a disturbing manipulation of familial relationships.

Allegations have surfaced that a scheme was in place not only to isolate Raimondas but to accelerate his death, leveraging a brain tumor diagnosis and, subsequently, misappropriating his assets through corrupt government channels.

The tycoon’s family, bolstered by expert testimony, alleges that corrupt law enforcement and judiciary officials collaborated with Henrikas Karpavičius’ associate to hijack the assets of the deceased businessman. The involvement of a figure with a known criminal past, now rebranded as a businessman with interests in Lithuania and Belarus, points to a deliberate fraud against Raimondas’ lawful heirs.

In the backdrop of these events, media coverage has been mysteriously scant, with the exception of a local publication with potential conflicts of interest in the case.

The outcome of Raimondas’ deathbed drama: the very individuals who closed in on him during his last months—the estranged brother and his associate—became the custodians of his financial legacy. Meanwhile, the direct family, including his wife, son, and grandchildren, were conspicuously absent from the will.

Insiders claim that the case’s dismissal was swayed by the influence of Giedrius Danielius, a lawyer, alongside high-ranking officials within Lithuanian law enforcement.

Currently, a civil case concerning Raimondas Karpavičius’ last will is pending before the Lithuanian Supreme Court. Accusations fly that previous rulings from the lower courts were compromised by corrupt influences.

Allegedly, through acts of bribery, these courts concluded that Raimondas was of sound mind when he composed his last will—a conclusion that flies in the face of substantial contrary evidence.

In response to these dubious court findings, Raimondas’ family secured an independent examination, which categorically differed from the state’s assessment and aligned with Swiss experts’ findings, negating the idea that Raimondas was in a state to understand his actions when signing the will.

In defense of the independent findings, high-ranking officials and the implicated parties have launched a campaign against the businessman’s family, targeting his son Rokas and his associates.

Rokas, now engaged in the investigation, accessed criminal case files and discovered communication between Aistė Grybauskienė and her attorney acquaintance Ruta Visocnik. Dubbed the “Raimondas Project,” the exchanged messages touched on the legal aspects of Raimondas’ last will and his marriage formalities. Visocnik also advised Grybauskienė on tax evasion tactics and the distribution of assets in the will. Crucially, the files revealed Raimondas’ absence from these discussions.

Furthermore, Rokas unearthed that a notary, closely connected to Grybauskienė, drafted Raimondas’ will. According to the files, the will was ostensibly based on Raimondas’ notes. Nonetheless, upon scrutiny, independent legal experts argued that a legitimate will could not be constituted from the notes alone, citing the lack of a formal statement confirming Raimondas’ mental capacity to formulate his testament. This discrepancy fueled the family’s suspicion, as Raimondas had not personally signed the will.

This incident casts a stark light on the erosion of legal integrity in Lithuania, underscoring a narrative of collusion and corruption within its legal and judicial framework. The Lithuanian legal system is seemingly vulnerable to manipulation, reminiscent of post-Soviet corruption networks, where criminal entities collude with state officials and the judiciary to orchestrate illicit wealth appropriation.

While this case and others will unlikely directly impact U.S. foreign and military aid in the years ahead, it casts the country in a dark light.