Report of Special investigation service about corruption risks

A few months ago the Special Investigation Service (SIS) announced its report regarding analysis of corruption risks in the area of confiscated assets administration and realization. It contains a bunch of information, gathered during the analysis, conclusions and recommendations/suggestions. We will present a few noticeable excerpts related to confiscated assets administration by the State Tax Inspectorate (STI).

Majority of assets in 2017-2018 administrated by the STI was vehicles, which value was relatevely low and they were sold by sales agents. During the mentioned period sales agents sold 5178 vehicles for total 2 300 424 € (444 € for a vehicle in average). Assuming an average sales agent commission is around 5%, STI paid them aroung 115 000 € for their service.

SIS noticed that persons sometimes have doubts regarding statements received from sales agent representatives, where it was said that particular vehicle has been sold, even though potential buyers were pretty sure that at the same they have seen the same vehicle on the agents parking lot. By the way, according the information we have it is still an issue for potential buyers – sales agent representatives often refuse to provide any information about a vehicle and motivate that they do not know anything about the vehicle, even though it is included in the latest confiscated assets list oficially published by STI. SIS report contains a couple of similar examples which actually happened in the period of 2018-2019.

A private person informed SIS, that he was told by sales agent representative the the vehicle he is asking about has been already sold. But according to information provided by the STI that particular vehicle was sold a month after the person asked about it a sales agent. So it turned out that a person reveived completely wrong information from a sales agent representative.

The next example – STI executed an unplanned check of one of the sales agents, based on notification received from another private person. He was informed that all four vehicle he was interested in have been sold already. Lately it was confirmed that only one vehicle was actually sold at report time and other three were still on sale.

An assumption might be made based on provided data, that sales agents are not really interested in selling provided vehicles or they have some other undisclosed intentions. Lets take a look at another example provided in the report.

There was a case identified, when one of the sales agents sold a vehicle to another company, which owner appeared to be exactly the same person as of the sales agent. The car Volvo XC70 was sold for 8658 € (even though its initial price was 17 000 €, discount was applied for it three times). Internal STI audit reports showed that the same sales agent had been already suspected of the same behavior a couple of times before.

That clearly shows how easily sales agents take a workaround for the contract condition, which states that a sales agent is not allowed to be purchase assets by itself. Also it is not allowed to purchase assets by sales agent manager/director, shareholders, their spouses or close relatives (as they are being described in the law of Republic of Lithuania).