Smuggling and corruption are negative social phenomena; it is not an objective reality, because people create them. Smuggling is commonly referred to as illegal traffic of goods (or other items) across the state border, unlawful disposal of illegally imported goods that are subject to tax. Corruption is understood as any behaviour of a public servant or an equivalent person, which does not match their empowerment or set standards of behaviour, or a promotion of such behaviour in order to gain benefit for self or others, thus injuring the interests of individuals and the state. The authors of the article are of opinion that smuggling and corruption are among the most dangerous social phenomena that endanger human rights, democracy and the rule of law and that distort social justice. Therefore, this article seeks to reveal and analyse the link between smuggling and corruption as two social phenomena by discussing the common features of smuggling and corruption as distinct social phenomena, and evaluating the interrelationship of smuggling and corruption and their influence on the extent and spread of both criminal activities. The world uses various methods to diagnose smuggling and corruption: assessment of perceptions of these phenomena, assessment and understanding of experience when encountering cases of corruption or smuggling, legal statistics, etc. The article presents analysis of dynamics of and links between various smuggling and corruption- related criminal acts as social phenomena; it also examines the relation of dynamics of smuggling acts to dynamics of corruption- related criminal acts, provides common shared features of corruption and smuggling as separate social phenomena.
Smuggling and corruption are negative social phenomena; it is not an objective reality, because people create them. Smuggling is commonly referred to as illegal traffic of goods (or other items) across the state border, unlawful disposal of illegally imported goods that are subject to tax. Corruption is understood as any behaviour of a public servant or an equivalent person, which does not match their empowerment or set standards of behaviour, or a promotion of such behaviour in order to gain benefit for self or others, thus injuring the interests of individuals and the state. The authors of the article are of opinion that smuggling and corruption are among the most dangerous social phenomena that endanger human rights, democracy and the rule of law and that distort social justice. Therefore, this article seeks to reveal and analyse the link between smuggling and corruption as two social phenomena by discussing the common features of smuggling and corruption as distinct social phenomena, and evaluating the interrelationship of smuggling and corruption and their influence on the extent and spread of both criminal activities. The world uses various methods to diagnose smuggling and corruption: assessment of perceptions of these phenomena, assessment and understanding of experience when encountering cases of corruption or smuggling, legal statistics, etc. The article presents analysis of dynamics of and links between various smuggling and corruption- related criminal acts as social phenomena; it also examines the relation of dynamics of smuggling acts to dynamics of corruption- related criminal acts, provides common shared features of corruption and smuggling as separate social phenomena.
This article analyzes the Lithuanian model of criminalization of customs infringements, assessing it in accordance with the harmonized customs supervision system in the European Union, as well as in terms of consistency, reasonableness and proportionality. Questions of legality and control of the movement of goods across borders are common and obligatory to all countries of the European Union, therefore Lithuanian national legislation should be consistent with this legal regulation as much as possible, not to oppose it. This is also relevant for codes that lay down administrative and criminal liability for non-compliance with the common rules and procedures applicable to goods entering or leaving the customs territory of the Union. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania contains three norms establishing criminal liability for customs infringements: 1) smuggling (Art. 199); 2) customs fraud (Art. 199); 3) the unlawful non-export of goods or products from the Republic of Lithuania (Art. 200). All these crimes are classified as less serious and serious and this shows a great concern of the legislator about the damage caused by these infringements and the desire to insert in the norms a very strong element of dissuasion. In legal literature, this aspect of the existing criminal regulation is sometimes criticized due to excessive sanctions. On the other hand, in the public legal discussion there are no comments on the coherence and validity of the criminalization model established in the criminal legislation, whether all criminalized acts in this area really deserve a status of crime and properly aligned with the fact of belonging of the Republic of Lithuania to the common customs territory of the European Union and the Union Customs Code regulation. The article mostly focuses on these issues. The author of the article has drawn the following conclusions: 1) in the system of three norms that criminalize customs infringements can be seen both positively evaluated and preserved, as well as non-systemic and exclusionary features. Some of them may lead to excessive criminal liability, while others, on the contrary, leave room for legal gaps; 2) the status of customs offence deserves acts related to an attempt to avoid or mislead customs supervision in order to obtain unlawful tax benefits of a fixed amount. Other violations should lead to non-criminal sanctions. The model of criminalization should include avoiding and deceiving both the "external" customs supervision (applied at the border of EU customs union) and "internal" EU customs supervision (applied at the territory of EU customs union). The criterion, which establishes the basis for criminal liability for smuggling and other customs offenses, should be related with the evaded tax burden, but not with the value of transported goods and items. This criterion should be solid enough to not devalue the institute of criminal liability and consistent with general criminal legislation on tax evasion; 3) the possibility of imposing criminal liability solely for a lack of permission to transport some special kind of items across the state border (regardless of the value of the goods and status of goods under customs supervision), set in the norm of smuggling (art. 199), does not comply with the principle of proportionality; 4) the application of criminal liability for the non-declaration of cash when crossing the borders with non-EU countries, set in the norm of smuggling (art. 199), regardless of the origin of money and the purpose of the carriage, does not comply with the requirement of proportionality and aims of criminal law; 5) limitation of the subject of customs fraud (art. 199-1) to only goods brought to Lithuania from another European Union country unjustifiably restricts the scope of the norm, which does not cover violations of special procedures (customs warehousing, free zones, temporary admission, end-use, inward and outward processing) applicable to goods brought directly from third countries; 6) all customs related crimes can be merged into one article of the Criminal Code and included into section of financial criminal offenses.
This article analyzes the Lithuanian model of criminalization of customs infringements, assessing it in accordance with the harmonized customs supervision system in the European Union, as well as in terms of consistency, reasonableness and proportionality. Questions of legality and control of the movement of goods across borders are common and obligatory to all countries of the European Union, therefore Lithuanian national legislation should be consistent with this legal regulation as much as possible, not to oppose it. This is also relevant for codes that lay down administrative and criminal liability for non-compliance with the common rules and procedures applicable to goods entering or leaving the customs territory of the Union. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania contains three norms establishing criminal liability for customs infringements: 1) smuggling (Art. 199); 2) customs fraud (Art. 199); 3) the unlawful non-export of goods or products from the Republic of Lithuania (Art. 200). All these crimes are classified as less serious and serious and this shows a great concern of the legislator about the damage caused by these infringements and the desire to insert in the norms a very strong element of dissuasion. In legal literature, this aspect of the existing criminal regulation is sometimes criticized due to excessive sanctions. On the other hand, in the public legal discussion there are no comments on the coherence and validity of the criminalization model established in the criminal legislation, whether all criminalized acts in this area really deserve a status of crime and properly aligned with the fact of belonging of the Republic of Lithuania to the common customs territory of the European Union and the Union Customs Code regulation. The article mostly focuses on these issues. The author of the article has drawn the following conclusions: 1) in the system of three norms that criminalize customs infringements can be seen both positively evaluated and preserved, as well as non-systemic and exclusionary features. Some of them may lead to excessive criminal liability, while others, on the contrary, leave room for legal gaps; 2) the status of customs offence deserves acts related to an attempt to avoid or mislead customs supervision in order to obtain unlawful tax benefits of a fixed amount. Other violations should lead to non-criminal sanctions. The model of criminalization should include avoiding and deceiving both the "external" customs supervision (applied at the border of EU customs union) and "internal" EU customs supervision (applied at the territory of EU customs union). The criterion, which establishes the basis for criminal liability for smuggling and other customs offenses, should be related with the evaded tax burden, but not with the value of transported goods and items. This criterion should be solid enough to not devalue the institute of criminal liability and consistent with general criminal legislation on tax evasion; 3) the possibility of imposing criminal liability solely for a lack of permission to transport some special kind of items across the state border (regardless of the value of the goods and status of goods under customs supervision), set in the norm of smuggling (art. 199), does not comply with the principle of proportionality; 4) the application of criminal liability for the non-declaration of cash when crossing the borders with non-EU countries, set in the norm of smuggling (art. 199), regardless of the origin of money and the purpose of the carriage, does not comply with the requirement of proportionality and aims of criminal law; 5) limitation of the subject of customs fraud (art. 199-1) to only goods brought to Lithuania from another European Union country unjustifiably restricts the scope of the norm, which does not cover violations of special procedures (customs warehousing, free zones, temporary admission, end-use, inward and outward processing) applicable to goods brought directly from third countries; 6) all customs related crimes can be merged into one article of the Criminal Code and included into section of financial criminal offenses.
The article analyzes the legal concept of tax evasion and its equivalents in the system of special part of criminal legislation. The author, emphasizing subsidiarity of criminal law in relation with the tax law, assesses the quality and consistency of relevant norms of criminal code, rationality of criteria to criminalize various forms of tax evasion, discusses the ways to improve the legal regulation, draws attention to the issues of qualification of tax offenses illustrating his conclusions by reference to the relevant precedents of the Court of Cassation. The author draws attention to the lack of Criminal Code regulation, which by misunderstanding uses the notion of tax avoidance instead of tax evasion, while in the Code there is a whole chaotic set of tax evasion corresponding norms, which are scattered in different sections. This collection contains both the articles set out in the chapter of offenses against financial system (Chapter XXXII) and the articles defining offences against property, property rights and property interests (Chapter XXVIII), as well as offences against the economy and business (Chapter XXXI). The basic idea of the presented research is that the application of criminal liability for tax violations and their delimitation from non-criminal activity of tax payers must be based on classification of tax burden reduction adopted in the tax law. In other terms, the criminal justice must be able to distinguish between tax optimization, tax avoidance and tax evasion, as well as to ensure that criminal liability would be applied only for the illegal tax burden reduction which corresponds to the concept of tax evasion. Very important are also criterions of delimitation of the criminal and administrative liability for tax evasion, paying special attention to their clarity and rationality. The author is critical of the existing criminal legal regulation, according to which offences corresponding to the concept of tax evasion are scattered in different chapters of criminal legislation, are not compatible with each other and based on different legal logic. The author criticizes also the provision of article 220 of Criminal Code under which € 380 evasion is sufficient to result in criminal liability. According to the author, this size should be 25 times higher, while the existing criterion is inconsistent with the Code of Administrative Offenses. The author also criticizes part 1 of article 202 of Criminal Code, which establishes the criteria of criminal liability for illegal economic activities, one of them (entrepreneurial way) is very vague and naturally inherent in any business. This complicates the issue of criminal and administrative responsibility delimitation and creates favorable conditions to carry redundant criminal proceedings for minor violations. The article critically evaluates also the norms on deceptive and negligent accounting, in which the criteria of criminalization are extremely abstract. The author also advocates the need for a total decriminalization of negligent accounting as incompatible with the purposes of criminal legislation. The article also criticizes the definition of illicit enrichment which lacks the legal logic and rationality. According to the author, the criminality of illicit enrichment (art. 189(1) of CC) should not be associated with the value of the assets held, but to the value of concealed income from such assets are acquired. The article expresses the idea that criminal punishability of all tax evasion offenses must lead to the same criteria – the value of concealed or attempted to conceal taxes and income. All such tax evasion norms should be included into the financial crimes section of criminal legislation.
The article analyzes the legal concept of tax evasion and its equivalents in the system of special part of criminal legislation. The author, emphasizing subsidiarity of criminal law in relation with the tax law, assesses the quality and consistency of relevant norms of criminal code, rationality of criteria to criminalize various forms of tax evasion, discusses the ways to improve the legal regulation, draws attention to the issues of qualification of tax offenses illustrating his conclusions by reference to the relevant precedents of the Court of Cassation. The author draws attention to the lack of Criminal Code regulation, which by misunderstanding uses the notion of tax avoidance instead of tax evasion, while in the Code there is a whole chaotic set of tax evasion corresponding norms, which are scattered in different sections. This collection contains both the articles set out in the chapter of offenses against financial system (Chapter XXXII) and the articles defining offences against property, property rights and property interests (Chapter XXVIII), as well as offences against the economy and business (Chapter XXXI). The basic idea of the presented research is that the application of criminal liability for tax violations and their delimitation from non-criminal activity of tax payers must be based on classification of tax burden reduction adopted in the tax law. In other terms, the criminal justice must be able to distinguish between tax optimization, tax avoidance and tax evasion, as well as to ensure that criminal liability would be applied only for the illegal tax burden reduction which corresponds to the concept of tax evasion. Very important are also criterions of delimitation of the criminal and administrative liability for tax evasion, paying special attention to their clarity and rationality. The author is critical of the existing criminal legal regulation, according to which offences corresponding to the concept of tax evasion are scattered in different chapters of criminal legislation, are not compatible with each other and based on different legal logic. The author criticizes also the provision of article 220 of Criminal Code under which € 380 evasion is sufficient to result in criminal liability. According to the author, this size should be 25 times higher, while the existing criterion is inconsistent with the Code of Administrative Offenses. The author also criticizes part 1 of article 202 of Criminal Code, which establishes the criteria of criminal liability for illegal economic activities, one of them (entrepreneurial way) is very vague and naturally inherent in any business. This complicates the issue of criminal and administrative responsibility delimitation and creates favorable conditions to carry redundant criminal proceedings for minor violations. The article critically evaluates also the norms on deceptive and negligent accounting, in which the criteria of criminalization are extremely abstract. The author also advocates the need for a total decriminalization of negligent accounting as incompatible with the purposes of criminal legislation. The article also criticizes the definition of illicit enrichment which lacks the legal logic and rationality. According to the author, the criminality of illicit enrichment (art. 189(1) of CC) should not be associated with the value of the assets held, but to the value of concealed income from such assets are acquired. The article expresses the idea that criminal punishability of all tax evasion offenses must lead to the same criteria – the value of concealed or attempted to conceal taxes and income. All such tax evasion norms should be included into the financial crimes section of criminal legislation.
Excise duty is a one-off indirect tax levied on specific goods produced for consumption. Having as an aim the creation of effective single market of the European Community with free movement of goods and market relations undistorted by the differences in the taxation systems between the member states, it is necessary to harmonize the excise duty in the Community. This has been achieved by regulating general rules of the use of the excise tax and by setting structure and rates of certain taxable objects. One of the reasons that promote the illegal market is related to great differences in the rates of certain taxable objects in member states. On the other hand, smuggling does not come to an end having approximated tax rates if economic conditions still are not of equal base. Due to its legal commitments under the burden of the European Union, Lithuania has implemented Community law given the permission to reach the minimum excise rates in transition periods. The regulation of the excise duty in the European Union is the indirect way to implement other objectives too: by setting the system of exemptions from excise taxation regarding bio-alternatives, the European Union seeks to limit the use of natural resources and to preserve the environment from substances causing climate change and pollution.
Excise duty is a one-off indirect tax levied on specific goods produced for consumption. Having as an aim the creation of effective single market of the European Community with free movement of goods and market relations undistorted by the differences in the taxation systems between the member states, it is necessary to harmonize the excise duty in the Community. This has been achieved by regulating general rules of the use of the excise tax and by setting structure and rates of certain taxable objects. One of the reasons that promote the illegal market is related to great differences in the rates of certain taxable objects in member states. On the other hand, smuggling does not come to an end having approximated tax rates if economic conditions still are not of equal base. Due to its legal commitments under the burden of the European Union, Lithuania has implemented Community law given the permission to reach the minimum excise rates in transition periods. The regulation of the excise duty in the European Union is the indirect way to implement other objectives too: by setting the system of exemptions from excise taxation regarding bio-alternatives, the European Union seeks to limit the use of natural resources and to preserve the environment from substances causing climate change and pollution.
Excise duty is a one-off indirect tax levied on specific goods produced for consumption. Having as an aim the creation of effective single market of the European Community with free movement of goods and market relations undistorted by the differences in the taxation systems between the member states, it is necessary to harmonize the excise duty in the Community. This has been achieved by regulating general rules of the use of the excise tax and by setting structure and rates of certain taxable objects. One of the reasons that promote the illegal market is related to great differences in the rates of certain taxable objects in member states. On the other hand, smuggling does not come to an end having approximated tax rates if economic conditions still are not of equal base. Due to its legal commitments under the burden of the European Union, Lithuania has implemented Community law given the permission to reach the minimum excise rates in transition periods. The regulation of the excise duty in the European Union is the indirect way to implement other objectives too: by setting the system of exemptions from excise taxation regarding bio-alternatives, the European Union seeks to limit the use of natural resources and to preserve the environment from substances causing climate change and pollution.
Excise duty is a one-off indirect tax levied on specific goods produced for consumption. Having as an aim the creation of effective single market of the European Community with free movement of goods and market relations undistorted by the differences in the taxation systems between the member states, it is necessary to harmonize the excise duty in the Community. This has been achieved by regulating general rules of the use of the excise tax and by setting structure and rates of certain taxable objects. One of the reasons that promote the illegal market is related to great differences in the rates of certain taxable objects in member states. On the other hand, smuggling does not come to an end having approximated tax rates if economic conditions still are not of equal base. Due to its legal commitments under the burden of the European Union, Lithuania has implemented Community law given the permission to reach the minimum excise rates in transition periods. The regulation of the excise duty in the European Union is the indirect way to implement other objectives too: by setting the system of exemptions from excise taxation regarding bio-alternatives, the European Union seeks to limit the use of natural resources and to preserve the environment from substances causing climate change and pollution.
An owner of a printing house and a publisher, Martynas Jankus (1858–1946) was a citizen of Germany and a Lithuanian of the East Prussian region. He was an active member of the Lithuanian national movement of the 19th – early 20th century. He supported the opposition of the people of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was annexed and integrated into the Russian empire in 1795. When the usage of the Lithuanian language in Latin script was banned in 1864–1904, Martynas Jankus started printing illegal books and newspapers in his printing house and transporting them secretly to the Russian empire. He supported publishing "Auszra" and "Varpas" the most influential newspapers of the national movement. In 1918, after the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania, this veteran of Lithuanian culture and politics was highly appreciated and attracted close attention of journalists. He publicised quite many memoirs about the publishing and distribution of illegal press, known newspaper editors and book authors, printers, and publishers. The greatest value for historiographic research of the book resides in three generalised memoirs that M. Jankus attempted in his late years. They include the publication "Smuggling of Lithuanian books" ("Lietuviškų Kningų Kontrabanda") which was published in the newspaper "Tėvynė" (1918) edited by Lithuanians in the USA, and two unpublished manuscripts: an exhaustive narrative (27 pages) without a title about the state of the Lithuanian press and language during the period of the growth of the national movement, sent to the professor linguist of the Göttingen university (Germany) Eduard Hermann, and the memoirs "An encyclopedia of my adventures" (,,Mano prietikių enciklopedija") written in the form of a scholarly encyclopedic dictionary characterizing the acquaintances of M. Jankus. The advantage of the memoirs lays in the point of view of the author who is a direct participant and observer of the factual events, political and social processes, and characters of persons. Foreign researchers appreciate the knowledge of M. Jankus' cooperation with the participants of Byelorusian, Polish, and German national and revolutionary movements and assistance in their literary publishing. On the other hand, although this author wrote many published and unpublished memoirs, they were small in size, written in the journalistic style and quite open. Therefore, they raised contradictions and critical comments of the public. Many did not understand the character of M. Jankus, which was conditioned by differences in cultural and religious traditions based on the civil rights of Prussian citizens, implying a much greater religious and political freedom. His publications and opinions were not self-controlled or limited in any way. The author sincerely depicted the positive and negative sides and character of the national movement and its participants. He was among the first to raise the issues of Polonized and estranged Catholic priests and the vices of the book smuggling as a social phenomenon. The Lithuanian society was not matured enough at his time and did not support him. The dethronement of the movements, communities, and leaders that had a national character was not tolerated during M. Jankus' lifetime; it is not tolerated in modern society, either.
An owner of a printing house and a publisher, Martynas Jankus (1858–1946) was a citizen of Germany and a Lithuanian of the East Prussian region. He was an active member of the Lithuanian national movement of the 19th – early 20th century. He supported the opposition of the people of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was annexed and integrated into the Russian empire in 1795. When the usage of the Lithuanian language in Latin script was banned in 1864–1904, Martynas Jankus started printing illegal books and newspapers in his printing house and transporting them secretly to the Russian empire. He supported publishing "Auszra" and "Varpas" the most influential newspapers of the national movement. In 1918, after the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania, this veteran of Lithuanian culture and politics was highly appreciated and attracted close attention of journalists. He publicised quite many memoirs about the publishing and distribution of illegal press, known newspaper editors and book authors, printers, and publishers. The greatest value for historiographic research of the book resides in three generalised memoirs that M. Jankus attempted in his late years. They include the publication "Smuggling of Lithuanian books" ("Lietuviškų Kningų Kontrabanda") which was published in the newspaper "Tėvynė" (1918) edited by Lithuanians in the USA, and two unpublished manuscripts: an exhaustive narrative (27 pages) without a title about the state of the Lithuanian press and language during the period of the growth of the national movement, sent to the professor linguist of the Göttingen university (Germany) Eduard Hermann, and the memoirs "An encyclopedia of my adventures" (,,Mano prietikių enciklopedija") written in the form of a scholarly encyclopedic dictionary characterizing the acquaintances of M. Jankus. The advantage of the memoirs lays in the point of view of the author who is a direct participant and observer of the factual events, political and social processes, and characters of persons. Foreign researchers appreciate the knowledge of M. Jankus' cooperation with the participants of Byelorusian, Polish, and German national and revolutionary movements and assistance in their literary publishing. On the other hand, although this author wrote many published and unpublished memoirs, they were small in size, written in the journalistic style and quite open. Therefore, they raised contradictions and critical comments of the public. Many did not understand the character of M. Jankus, which was conditioned by differences in cultural and religious traditions based on the civil rights of Prussian citizens, implying a much greater religious and political freedom. His publications and opinions were not self-controlled or limited in any way. The author sincerely depicted the positive and negative sides and character of the national movement and its participants. He was among the first to raise the issues of Polonized and estranged Catholic priests and the vices of the book smuggling as a social phenomenon. The Lithuanian society was not matured enough at his time and did not support him. The dethronement of the movements, communities, and leaders that had a national character was not tolerated during M. Jankus' lifetime; it is not tolerated in modern society, either.
An owner of a printing house and a publisher, Martynas Jankus (1858–1946) was a citizen of Germany and a Lithuanian of the East Prussian region. He was an active member of the Lithuanian national movement of the 19th – early 20th century. He supported the opposition of the people of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was annexed and integrated into the Russian empire in 1795. When the usage of the Lithuanian language in Latin script was banned in 1864–1904, Martynas Jankus started printing illegal books and newspapers in his printing house and transporting them secretly to the Russian empire. He supported publishing "Auszra" and "Varpas" the most influential newspapers of the national movement. In 1918, after the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania, this veteran of Lithuanian culture and politics was highly appreciated and attracted close attention of journalists. He publicised quite many memoirs about the publishing and distribution of illegal press, known newspaper editors and book authors, printers, and publishers. The greatest value for historiographic research of the book resides in three generalised memoirs that M. Jankus attempted in his late years. They include the publication "Smuggling of Lithuanian books" ("Lietuviškų Kningų Kontrabanda") which was published in the newspaper "Tėvynė" (1918) edited by Lithuanians in the USA, and two unpublished manuscripts: an exhaustive narrative (27 pages) without a title about the state of the Lithuanian press and language during the period of the growth of the national movement, sent to the professor linguist of the Göttingen university (Germany) Eduard Hermann, and the memoirs "An encyclopedia of my adventures" (,,Mano prietikių enciklopedija") written in the form of a scholarly encyclopedic dictionary characterizing the acquaintances of M. Jankus. The advantage of the memoirs lays in the point of view of the author who is a direct participant and observer of the factual events, political and social processes, and characters of persons. Foreign researchers appreciate the knowledge of M. Jankus' cooperation with the participants of Byelorusian, Polish, and German national and revolutionary movements and assistance in their literary publishing. On the other hand, although this author wrote many published and unpublished memoirs, they were small in size, written in the journalistic style and quite open. Therefore, they raised contradictions and critical comments of the public. Many did not understand the character of M. Jankus, which was conditioned by differences in cultural and religious traditions based on the civil rights of Prussian citizens, implying a much greater religious and political freedom. His publications and opinions were not self-controlled or limited in any way. The author sincerely depicted the positive and negative sides and character of the national movement and its participants. He was among the first to raise the issues of Polonized and estranged Catholic priests and the vices of the book smuggling as a social phenomenon. The Lithuanian society was not matured enough at his time and did not support him. The dethronement of the movements, communities, and leaders that had a national character was not tolerated during M. Jankus' lifetime; it is not tolerated in modern society, either.
An owner of a printing house and a publisher, Martynas Jankus (1858–1946) was a citizen of Germany and a Lithuanian of the East Prussian region. He was an active member of the Lithuanian national movement of the 19th – early 20th century. He supported the opposition of the people of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was annexed and integrated into the Russian empire in 1795. When the usage of the Lithuanian language in Latin script was banned in 1864–1904, Martynas Jankus started printing illegal books and newspapers in his printing house and transporting them secretly to the Russian empire. He supported publishing "Auszra" and "Varpas" the most influential newspapers of the national movement. In 1918, after the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania, this veteran of Lithuanian culture and politics was highly appreciated and attracted close attention of journalists. He publicised quite many memoirs about the publishing and distribution of illegal press, known newspaper editors and book authors, printers, and publishers. The greatest value for historiographic research of the book resides in three generalised memoirs that M. Jankus attempted in his late years. They include the publication "Smuggling of Lithuanian books" ("Lietuviškų Kningų Kontrabanda") which was published in the newspaper "Tėvynė" (1918) edited by Lithuanians in the USA, and two unpublished manuscripts: an exhaustive narrative (27 pages) without a title about the state of the Lithuanian press and language during the period of the growth of the national movement, sent to the professor linguist of the Göttingen university (Germany) Eduard Hermann, and the memoirs "An encyclopedia of my adventures" (,,Mano prietikių enciklopedija") written in the form of a scholarly encyclopedic dictionary characterizing the acquaintances of M. Jankus. The advantage of the memoirs lays in the point of view of the author who is a direct participant and observer of the factual events, political and social processes, and characters of persons. Foreign researchers appreciate the knowledge of M. Jankus' cooperation with the participants of Byelorusian, Polish, and German national and revolutionary movements and assistance in their literary publishing. On the other hand, although this author wrote many published and unpublished memoirs, they were small in size, written in the journalistic style and quite open. Therefore, they raised contradictions and critical comments of the public. Many did not understand the character of M. Jankus, which was conditioned by differences in cultural and religious traditions based on the civil rights of Prussian citizens, implying a much greater religious and political freedom. His publications and opinions were not self-controlled or limited in any way. The author sincerely depicted the positive and negative sides and character of the national movement and its participants. He was among the first to raise the issues of Polonized and estranged Catholic priests and the vices of the book smuggling as a social phenomenon. The Lithuanian society was not matured enough at his time and did not support him. The dethronement of the movements, communities, and leaders that had a national character was not tolerated during M. Jankus' lifetime; it is not tolerated in modern society, either.
This study intends to provide a descriptive-analytical inventory of models and policies that Lithuania are using with regard to recruitment, selection and training of statutory officers. For statutory officer ranks, it is compulsory that the applicant have a diploma from a university or a diploma recognized by the Lithuanian state in case they have graduated from a university outside Lithuania. While the idea of university education for statutory officers was first proposed many years ago, there is still no consensus about what officer's professionalism actually means. While the idea of university education for statutory officers is supported by both police and state border guard managers and academics, in principle, the body of knowledge in policing is still being developed. The situation in the world is characterized by a dynamic transformation of the system of international relations. Russia is in a war state against Ukraine now. Practically Russia is in a state of war against Europe. It is a very important in aspect of Lithuanian national security. The primary interests of the Republic of Lithuania are: viability of NATO and the EU, security, democracy and welfare of all states of the Euro-Atlantic community. The external risks, dangers and threats which must be given particular attention by the institutions ensuring national security are as follows: economic and energy dependence (energy, transport, finances and crediting); crime and shadow economy, international organized crime and other cross-border crimes – human trafficking, smuggling, illicit trade in drugs, arms, dual-use items, money laundering, illegal immigration, cyber-crime and other criminal acts. The police and state border guard officers must be professional in order to do their tasks professionally. [.]
