Question 1

1. Are there any ongoing legal proceedings?

Accepted Answer

Yes.
Criminal proceedings (No. 03-2-00365-23) have been initiated by the Kaunas District Prosecutor’s Office.
The case is currently under judicial consideration, and the final legal assessment of all evidence belongs exclusively to the court.

Question 2

2. What is Victor Redko’s position regarding the indictment?

Accepted Answer

Mr. Victor Redko does not admit guilt.
It is his position that:
· no criminal offence has been committed
· no intentional violation of EU sanctions has occurred
· no deliberate participation in prohibited economic activity has taken place
The indictment does not establish criminal intent or provide direct evidence of unlawful conduct.

Question 3

3. Do the allegations involve sanctions violations?

Accepted Answer

The allegations relate to interpretations of transactions and supply chains.
However:
· the materials referenced do not demonstrate intentional sanctions evasion
· no direct evidence of prohibited exports has been established
· no confirmed violations have been determined by a court
Any legal conclusions remain subject to judicial review.

Question 4

4. What type of equipment is involved?

Accepted Answer

The equipment referenced is classified under: CN (Combined Nomenclature) code 8421.21.00, “filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for liquids – for water”.
This equipment:
· is designed for water treatment
· is widely used in industrial and municipal systems
· is not oil-refining or petrochemical equipment
· is not classified as dual-use goods under Regulation (EU) 2021/821
Importantly:
This CN code is not listed in the annexes of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, which defines export restrictions.

Question 5

5. Is this equipment subject to EU export bans?

Accepted Answer

No general export ban applies to this category of equipment.
Under EU sanctions legislation:
· restrictions apply only to specifically listed goods
· liability arises only if prohibited goods are exported or sanctions are intentionally circumvented

Question 6

6. Were the referenced contracts lawful?

Accepted Answer

Yes.
Contracts mentioned in the proceedings were concluded prior to 24 February 2022, at a time when such activities were lawful.
EU sanctions regimes generally do not apply retroactively unless explicitly stated.

Question 7

7. Who was responsible for logistics and export procedures?

Accepted Answer

Operational and logistical processes were carried out by:
· company staff
· external logistics providers
· customs intermediaries
Mr. Victor Redko did not personally:
· organise transportation
· prepare customs declarations
· control export execution
All goods were formally declared using applicable customs classifications.

Question 8

8. Were goods properly declared?

Accepted Answer

Yes.
All goods were:
· declared under correct CN codes
· supported by standard documentation
· processed through formal customs procedures
No confirmed misdeclaration has been established.

Question 9

9. Does the corporate structure indicate wrongdoing?

Accepted Answer

No.
The international structure of the Jurby group:
· has existed for many years
· has been openly registered
· operated transparently
Corporate structuring itself does not constitute evidence of unlawful activity.

Question 10

10. Why were restrictive measures (e.g., account freezes) applied?

Accepted Answer

Certain precautionary measures were implemented during the investigation, including:
· temporary account restrictions
· operational limitations
· extended compliance checks
Such measures are standard within investigative procedures and do not imply guilt.

Question 11

11. What is the current legal status?

Accepted Answer

The case is ongoing.
No final court decision has been issued.
Under fundamental legal principles: The presumption of innocence fully applies.

Question 12

12. How should partners and financial institutions interpret this situation?

Accepted Answer

Stakeholders are encouraged to rely on:
· formal legal outcomes
· applicable EU regulations
· documented compliance facts
rather than assumptions or interpretations not confirmed by court findings.

FAQ