In the dispute over the hundred thousand fine, LVAT asks the ECJ to clarify the procedure for imposing fines

LVAT appealed to the CJEU after the experts of the law firm “TGS Baltic” in the case regarding the fine imposed by the Bank of Lithuania (LB) on an unnamed financial institution raised doubts about the position of the regulator, when separate fines are imposed on a financial institution for different or similar violations, which are then added up mathematically. TGS Baltic reported.

LVAT representative Neringa Lukoševičienė told BNS that she could not disclose the name of the financial institution whose violation is being investigated, but indicated that the decision of the LB Financial Market Supervisory Service stated that this electronic money institution had committed eight violations of the law, seven of which are gross and systematic. maximum fines are imposed.

“The case under consideration is not public, as is the name of the applicant (company),” N. Lukoševičienė told BNS.

The LVAT panel of judges raised the question of whether the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing and its interpretation provided by the LB comply with EU law.

“A legally flawed situation could arise, when the final fine imposed for several violations of the law detected during one inspection (…) may exceed the maximum fine imposed on a financial institution – up to 10 percent.” of gross annual income and up to a maximum of 5.1 million euros”, lawyer Ramūnas Kontrauskas said in the report.

He also told BNS that he could not disclose which financial institution was referred to the CJEU in the dispute with LB. According to the lawyer, the dispute arose over a fine of several hundred thousand euros, and due to LVAT’s appeal to the ECJ, another case in which the Vilnius fintech institution “Payswix” is disputing with LB has been suspended.

“That (Payswix – BNS) case was also stopped for the same reason, due to the fact that another case was referred to the CJEU,” said the lawyer.

Lithuanian courts have applied to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of EU law about 100 times.