Confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of corruption crimes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Lithuania 
provided a summary of its case law on the application of 
confiscation of the instrumentalities of a criminal offence. The summary of case law of the Supreme Court 
of Lithuania (18 February 2010) notes that the instrumentalities shall mean any property which has been 
used to commit an offence. It should be determined that without this property the offence could not be made. 
The property must have specific properties, which support the commission of the crime, and economic value. 
Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that the property was recognized as the instrumentality of a criminal 
offence, if it had been used to reduce the effort or concentrate the forces, and with which a culprit makes an 
effect on the target of the offence or the victim and makes the harm to the values which are protected by 
criminal law. The mechanisms, equipment, tools, and other property used by the guilty person to condition 
or facilitate a criminal offence are considered as the instrumentalities of criminal offence as well. This could 
be property that was specially adapted for the commission of the crime. This could also include property that 
was not specially adapted for the commission of the crime, but without which the commission of the crime 
would have been significantly more difficult. A tool or other means can be property which was used 

---

25 
 
deliberately by the offender. This could be, in particular, the monetary resources used by the perpetrator to 
commit a criminal offence
12
. 
For example, if a perpetrator intentionally used their country house to hold meetings and discussions on 
corruption transactions, in most countries of the ACN, such house could be subjected to confiscation as the 
instrument of corruption offence. If a country house was provided by a third party with the perpetrator using 
the house to hold meetings and discussions on corruption transactions, such house may be subjected to 
confiscation from the third party pursuant to the legislation of a number of countries that tolerate such 
confiscation, under the stipulation that the third party knew, should or could have known, or were obliged to 
know about the purpose the house had been used for.