CONFIDENCE is proud of successful case!

The client – a public institution – suffered damage when one of the employees illegally embezzled more than EUR 220,000 from the institution. After the procedural court decisions recognized the damage caused to the institution, the debtor, in an unfair attempt to avoid the recovery of damages, entered into transactions that violated the rights of the institution: with her spouse, she entered into an agreement on the division of property in common joint ownership, on the basis of which the spouse received almost all of the joint property of the spouses; also, a land purchase and sale agreement was concluded with a close family friend, although the transfer of the plot was only fictitious. In order to further complicate the recovery, the debtor’s spouse transferred the property acquired after the property division to his father free of charge.

Despite the dishonest actions of the debtor and the persons related to it, the Lithuanian Court of Appeal supported the arguments of the client and his representatives: the main aim of the defendants was to complicate the client’s ability to recover damages by making chains of illegal transactions and hiding the debtor’s assets from recovery.

The court did not support the defendants’ arguments that the property was transferred in order to raise funds for the treatment of the debtor and her spouse’s child. The court supported the claimant’s position that for the treatment of the child, the common property must be accumulated and not divided, especially if it is transferred to third parties free of charge. Thus, the property division agreement was entered into in order to transfer the property from one pocket to another, where the said property would become unavailable to the plaintiff.

Since the property division agreement is illegal, the court decided that the part of the common property acquired by the spouse, which was transferred to the spouse’s father free of charge, was transferred without a legal basis.

Accordingly, the court supported the plaintiff’s arguments that there was no data in the case justifying that the debtor actually received the amount of money for the plot transferred to her friend, despite the fact that the contract stated that the plot was allegedly settled before the date of signing the contract.

Based on the court decision, the property was returned to the joint ownership of the debtor and her spouse, thus enabling the client to recover damages from the property.

The public institution was successfully represented in the case by CONFIDENCE partner lawyer dr. Laurynas Didiulis.
We are happy for the success of the client!

If you too are facing legal problems, CONFIDENCE professional lawyers can help you!