What does the investigative decision mean for the public procurements linked to Raudondvaris manor?
The investigative decision
Lithuania’s Special Investigation Service, known as STT, has decided not to open a pre-trial investigation into public procurements at the Raudondvaris manor institution. The procurements had been linked to the institution’s currently suspended acting director and deputy. STT representative Renata Keblienė said the decision followed a clarification of the circumstances, an analysis of the report received by the service and a review of other collected data. STT said it had not identified signs of corruption-related criminal conduct. The decision therefore closes this particular criminal-investigation question at the opening stage, rather than establishing that every aspect of the institution’s procurement practice has been independently audited.
What STT found about the contracts
STT said all contracts between the public institution Raudondvaris manor and the service provider concerned the purchase of goods or the rental of services that were genuinely needed for the institution’s activities. It also said that all material assets specified in the contracts were actually transferred and used for the institution’s needs. Those findings address the central concern in a criminal procurement assessment: whether contracted activity had a real operational purpose and whether the items or services existed in practice. They do not turn an investigative decision into a procurement award decision, but they explain why STT said the information reviewed did not show indicators of a corruption offence.
Why the procedure matters
A decision not to open a pre-trial investigation is a decision by an investigative body about whether the information and preliminary checks indicate a possible criminal offence requiring a formal investigation. It is different from a contracting authority’s decision to award a contract, and from a procurement review that may examine competition, specifications, transparency or value for money. In this case, STT’s stated basis was that the contracts related to real institutional needs and that the contracted material goods were delivered and used. The source does not report any finding of criminal wrongdoing, nor does it describe a separate procurement-law ruling against the manor.
IN NUMBERS
The case illustrates the distinction between scrutiny of public purchasing and a criminal investigation. STT’s conclusion is that the information examined did not justify opening the latter, while the institution’s procurement arrangements remain a matter that can be understood through the contracts, their stated purpose and the delivery and use of the goods and services.
Reported from 15min.lt, 2026-09-24. The Tender Wire is published by Otnox.
