Lithuanian Facebook groups such as „AFERISTAI !!! SUKČIAI !!! APGAVIKAI !!!“ fill up daily: a deposit paid, furniture never made, goods never sent, phone switched off. The post collects hundreds of shares — and usually that is where it ends. This guide explains why public naming rarely recovers money, what legal risk falls on the person posting, and what to do instead.
The group warns others, but does not recover money
A public post does have real value — other people read it and do not pay the same person. But it has three weaknesses:
- The post disappears into the feed. A week later neither victims nor lawyers can find it
- Cases are never linked. Ten victims write ten separate posts, and nobody adds up that the total loss is €20,000
- It carries no legal weight. A share count is not evidence and starts no procedure
Meanwhile the risk falls on you. And it is not theoretical.
Why public naming can backfire
You carry the burden of proof, not the accused
Civil Code Art. 2.24(1) establishes a presumption: published information is deemed untrue until the person who published it proves otherwise. In practice, in court it is not the accused who proves his good faith — it is you who must prove every statement you made.
"Scammer" is an accusation of a crime
Criminal Code Art. 154 (as rewritten by Law No. XIV-1749 of 22 December 2022) sets out two alternative acts. The first requires dissemination through a mass medium. The second does not — it covers defaming a person as having committed an intentional crime, punishable by community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or up to one year's imprisonment.
The word „sukčius“ imputes fraud — an intentional crime under Criminal Code Art. 182. For the second limb it does not matter where you wrote it: an ordinary group comment qualifies. Proceedings are brought by private prosecution, on the victim’s complaint, their legal representative’s statement, or a prosecutor’s demand.
Whether a particular Facebook post or group counts as a "mass medium" for the first limb is assessed by the court hearing the case — the statutory definition is open-ended, closing with "and any other means by which information is publicly disseminated". The second limb avoids the question entirely.
Article 31(1) of the Constitution ties guilt to a final court judgment. Until there is one, a categorical "he is a scammer" is your assertion, and you will have to substantiate it.
Photo, phone and address are judged separately
Even if all your facts are correct, publishing personal data has its own legal assessment:
- Art. 2.22 — image. Even a photo taken in a public place may not be displayed where doing so would degrade the person's honour, dignity or business reputation. A photo captioned "scammer" does exactly that
- Art. 2.23 — private life. Paragraph 4 allows a damages claim even for publishing accurate information — the statute speaks of publishing private-life data „nors ir atitinkančių tikrovę“ (even where true)
This is the sharpest asymmetry in the area: under Art. 2.24 truth is a complete defence; under Art. 2.23 it is not.
But truth alone does not create a claim either. Under Art. 2.23(4) the publication must also breach paras 1 and 3 — no consent, and no legitimate, well-founded public interest in knowing. So the publisher’s defence rests on consent, public interest or a court order.
On phone numbers and addresses. Art. 2.23 does not mention them. Its para 2 lists other examples (unlawful entry, surveillance, breach of the confidentiality of telephone conversations), though the list ends with "and other unlawful acts" and is open-ended. Whether a specific number or address is private-life information is decided case by case. In practice the faster route is a GDPR erasure request plus a complaint to VDAI.
What the regulator says about these posts
Competence is split by the purpose of processing, not by the platform. The words "social network" do not appear in ADTAĮ Art. 7(2) at all: the Inspector of Journalist Ethics (ŽEIT) supervises GDPR only where data are processed for journalistic, academic, artistic or literary purposes. Everything else stays with the State Data Protection Inspectorate (VDAI).
If you are the victim, you probably need VDAI, not ŽEIT. Where a scammer published your ID photo, personal code, phone or card details, or posted data to intimidate you, that is not a journalistic purpose — go to VDAI. This matters practically: in the ŽEIT lane, ADTAĮ Art. 4 disapplies GDPR Arts. 12–23, so the right to erasure does not operate, and ŽEIT lacks the Art. 58(2)(g) power to order deletion. A misdirected complaint is not lost — the authorities must cooperate and forward it (ADTAĮ Art. 7(4)) — but it costs time.
The joint VDAI–ŽEIT review "Asmens duomenų apsaugos priežiūros Lietuvoje apžvalga 2025" (1 July 2026), in the ŽEIT half at p. 82, describes this exact type of group, noting that one of the most frequent violations reported on social networks is publishing personal data in order to label someone "dishonest", "a fraudster" or "a deceiver" — names, surnames, photographs and phone numbers posted without consent, presented as a community "warning". It records that in these groups posts are not removed even after the dispute is resolved and the money returned, so the exposure becomes continuous.
In decision SPR-271 of 22 September 2025, ŽEIT assessed a post with a photo and name presenting a man as "a dishonest person (a scammer, a deceiver)". It held that the accusation had no lawful basis because it was confirmed by no official law-enforcement decision, so disseminating the personal data served as a form of punishment — and that even where the post stems from personal experience or a mutual disagreement, publishing personal data cannot be regarded as a lawful way of resolving a dispute.
Outcome: a reprimand, a warning, and an order to remove the post. The "but it's my genuine experience" argument did not work.
The realistic exposure
Without exaggeration. ŽEIT published 87 documents for 2025–2026 (86 substantive decisions) and imposed no fine in any of them — the measures actually applied are a reprimand to the controller, a warning to the publisher, and an order to remove.
That does not mean ŽEIT cannot fine. Under ADTAĮ Art. 32(3) administrative GDPR fines are imposed by the VDAI director or the Inspector of Journalist Ethics, and under VIĮ Art. 50(3)(4)–(5) the Inspector may open and hear administrative-offence proceedings. Those harsher measures simply were not used in the 2025–2026 decisions.
In civil honour-and-dignity proceedings Lithuanian courts often treat the declaration of a violation as sufficient satisfaction, and awards against private individuals are typically modest.
Larger awards appear where an accusation of a crime lacks a factual basis and is repeated systematically across several posts — those were the circumstances in which the Supreme Court, by ruling of 27 February 2025 in case No. e3K-7-4-403/2025, upheld €2,000 in non-pecuniary damages. That case concerned a public figure, but the decisive factors — an unfounded accusation of criminal conduct, repeated systematically — match a typical "naming and shaming" post.
In e3K-7-4-403/2025 the Supreme Court ruled on Facebook statements accusing a named person of a scam and of taking money — so that authority bears directly on group cases too.
When naming publicly is defensible
The line is clear and practical: is the person acting in the market, or is this a private dispute?
In decision SPR-320 (complaint No. SK-267, 2025) of 9 October 2025, ŽEIT upheld the complaint in part — it did not simply reject it.
The data-protection limb was rejected. The woman named had herself provided beauty and health services, publicly advertised her competence and invited customers, and the dispute concerned equipment bought for that business. So publishing her name, image and contacts was proportionate — her "veiklos skaidrumas… gali turėti tiesioginės įtakos vartotojų interesų apsaugai".
The honour-and-dignity limb was upheld and the poster was warned. ŽEIT held that a possible breach of a sale contract "negali būti laikomas pakankamu Pareiškėją vadinti aferiste" and that the label breached the ethical requirements for expressing an opinion under VIĮ Art. 2(31). The milder "dishonest customer" did not cross the line.
| Who is named | Assessment |
|---|---|
| A company, trader or service provider | A legitimate interest in informing consumers may justify publication |
| A private individual in a private dispute | Publication counts as punishment, not information — unlawful |
Practical conclusion: name the company and its registry details, not a private individual's identity. A legal person's business reputation is also protected (Art. 2.24(8)), so factual accuracy still matters — but the basis for naming is far stronger.
For group administrators. In decision No. SPR-241 (complaint No. SK-156, 2025) of 22 August 2025, ŽEIT treated a Facebook group administrator as the publisher of the public information — every measure was applied to him. He answers for the lawfulness of what is posted even where he did not write it, because he approves posts before publication and does not remove content once notified. In that case the commenters’ statements were held to be permissible opinions, and the violations found concerned privacy and personal data, not honour and dignity.
How to describe your case safely
Lithuanian case law distinguishes a statement of fact (verifiable, and you must prove it) from an opinion (an evaluation, not subject to a truth test, but which must rest on a factual basis).
Simply adding "in my opinion" is not enough. In its ruling of 26 January 2023 in case No. e3K-3-72-781/2023 the Supreme Court treated a categorical, verifiable statement as a statement of fact despite the evaluative — even radical — text surrounding it. In the same case a second challenged statement was classified as opinion and that part of the claim was dismissed: what decides it is not the label but whether the sentence asserts something checkable. Conversely, in its ruling of 16 May 2024 in case No. e3K-3-73-421/2024 the claim was dismissed because the evaluation rested on an objective basis — published material, data on criminal cases brought against the claimant, and conviction judgments.
What protects you is not the phrasing but the documents you can produce, and a conclusion that visibly follows from them.
| Risky | Safer |
|---|---|
| "X is a scammer / fraudster / thief" | "On 10 March 2026, under contract No. X, I transferred a €500 deposit. The agreed deadline was 15 April 2026. The work was not done and the deposit was not returned." |
| "He cheats people" | "Three letters and calls went unanswered; I have the correspondence and the bank statement." |
| "I'm certain this is an organised scam" | "I reported it to the police; the report was accepted on 2 May 2026. There is no court judgment in this matter." |
| Photo + name + phone + address | The company name and its legal entity code |
| "Does anyone know where he lives?" | "I invite anyone affected similarly to register their case." |
The short rule: you published it, so you will prove it. Facts about your own experience are yours; labels about another person are not.
The most common case: a deposit paid, a contractor gone
This is the most frequent scenario in these groups — a contract, a deposit, a missed deadline, a phone switched off. Legally it is almost always a civil dispute, and that changes the whole plan of action.
What you can claim under a works contract:
- Art. 6.658(2) — if the contractor does not start on time, or works so slowly that finishing by the deadline is clearly impossible, you may terminate the contract and claim damages
- Art. 6.658(3) — set a reasonable period to remedy the defects; if not remedied, terminate, or have a third party complete the work at the contractor's expense
- Art. 6.673(2) — where the work was ordered for personal or family needs, consumer works rules apply (Art. 6.681(4)), and they give the strongest tool: the customer may terminate at any time before accepting the result, paying only the part of the price proportionate to work actually performed. No need to prove the contractor was at fault
- Arts. 6.217 and 6.222 — a fundamental breach allows termination, and on termination you may demand the return of everything transferred in performing the contract
A contractor may demand a deposit at all only where the contract provides for it (Art. 6.655(2)).
Where to take the dispute:
- You bought from a business as a consumer → first complain to the trader in writing (within 3 months of learning of the breach; a reasoned reply is due within 14 days), then go to VVTAT. Its decision becomes enforceable if nobody goes to court within 30 days
- A deal between two private individuals → VVTAT has no jurisdiction; the route is straight to court
- You may also go to court immediately — using the ADR route does not forfeit court access
When it does become fraud. Supreme Court practice draws the line clearly: mere non-performance of a contractual obligation does not by itself give rise to criminal liability where nothing prevents recovering the loss by civil means.
Fraud requires deception already present when the contract was concluded — an intention never to perform — or deliberate conduct that defeats civil recovery: the person cannot be identified without law enforcement, the transaction was structured so its real content cannot be proved, the debtor deliberately made himself insolvent, or absconded.
That is precisely why a contractor who misses a deadline is not legally a fraudster — and precisely why calling him one in public leaves you with almost no defence.
The amount also determines the classification (MGL = €50). A boundary figure always falls in the lower band, because the statute says "does not exceed":
| Amount | Classification |
|---|---|
| up to €150 inclusive | Not a crime — Administrative Code Art. 108, fine €90–400 |
| over €150 up to €500 | Criminal Code Art. 182(4) — misdemeanour |
| over €500 up to €20,000 | Criminal Code Art. 182(1) |
| over €20,000 up to €45,000 | Art. 182(2) — high value |
| over €45,000 | Art. 182(3) — very high value |
On the complaint requirement. Under Art. 182(5), liability for parts 1 and 4 arises only on the victim's complaint, their legal representative's statement, or a prosecutor's demand — three alternatives, not one. Report it to the police regardless; a prosecutor can also start the case. Parts 2 and 3 (high and very high value) do not depend on a complaint.
What actually works
- Your bank — immediately. An unexecuted payment can sometimes still be stopped, and for fraud the bank can initiate a SEPA recall. More: I paid a scammer — the first 24 hours
- A written claim to the other party. You will need it for VVTAT, for court, and as proof that you tried to resolve the dispute
- The police — if there are signs of deception from the outset. Report via epolicija.lt and keep the ROIK reference number
- VVTAT or court — depending on whether it is a consumer dispute
- Register the case on Apgavo.lt — so it does not vanish into the feed and is linked with other victims of the same person
Where to report in general is covered in a separate guide: Fraud — where to report in Lithuania?
Apgavo.lt — the same goal without the legal risk
A group post and a report on Apgavo.lt address the same problem in different ways:
| Post in a group | Apgavo.lt | |
|---|---|---|
| Publication of data | Public names, photos, phone numbers | Nothing is public — neither your data nor the other person's |
| Legal risk to you | Arts. 2.24, 2.22, 2.23, Criminal Code Art. 154 | None — nothing is disseminated |
| Linking of cases | None | Automatic, by IBAN, phone, email |
| Outcome | Shares | Law firm assessment for a group lawsuit |
| After the dispute is settled | The post stays public indefinitely | The data were never public |
That last line is exactly what the regulator identified as the problem: posts remain even after the money is returned, and the exposure becomes continuous.
Registration and reporting are free. How it works: How to report a scammer on Apgavo.lt.
Before you pay — check first
The second most common post in these groups is "is this person reliable, I want to order work, will they take the deposit and disappear?". You do not have to wait for answers in the comments: check an IBAN, phone number, email or website and see whether others have already reported the same person. The check is free and anonymous.
The practical safeguards group members themselves recommend work better than any list: a written contract with a deadline, a deposit only where the contract provides for it and as small as possible, and payment by transfer rather than cash.
Summary
- Publicly calling someone a scammer shifts the burden of proof onto you (Art. 2.24(1))
- The label imputes an intentional crime — for the second limb of Criminal Code Art. 154 it does not matter where you wrote it
- Personal data are assessed separately from whether your facts are true; under Art. 2.23(4) truth is not a defence, though the publication must also breach paras 1 and 3
- "It's my personal experience" — ŽEIT decision SPR-271 found that insufficient
- Naming a trader and publishing their contacts is far more defensible than doing so to a private individual — but calling either one an "aferistas" is not (SPR-320)
- A late contractor is usually a civil dispute, not fraud — for consumer works, recover the deposit under Art. 6.673(2)
- Write facts and dates, not labels
Register a scammer on Apgavo.lt · Check an identifier
About this guide. General information, not legal advice. What it describes is risk, not certainty: whether a particular post is unlawful is decided by a regulator or a court on all the circumstances — no web page decides that for you. If you have already received a claim or a lawsuit over something you posted, take advice rather than relying on this page.
The legal content was checked against primary sources on 29 July 2026; versions may have changed since. Check statutes at e-seimas.lrs.lt and decisions at zeit.lt.
Found an error? Tell us — [email protected]. Wrong legal information on this page could harm someone, so corrections are made promptly.