《刑法》第 228 条（ “渎职”）、第 183 条（ “挪用财产”）和第 184 条（ “挥霍财产”）将公职人员贪污、挪用或以其他方式侵犯财产的行为定为刑事犯罪。审议小组注意到，犯罪的公职人员仅归于渎职类，而且《刑法》第 183-184 条笼统地提及了“他人财产”而未提及公职人员因其职务而受托管理的财产。据立陶宛当局解释，《刑法》第183 条和第 184 条并未区分私营部门和公共部门。如果有关罪行是通过渎职实施的，现行的法庭惯例是同时适用《刑法》第 228条、第 183 条和第 184 条。公职人员侵犯财产的行为并未作为独立的罪行加以定罪。这种行为也可按照《刑法》第 228 条（渎职）进行起诉。
审议人员主张实行专门的定罪条款，涵盖公职人员贪污、挪用或侵犯财产的行为。这样做还有一个原因是，如果比照适用《刑法》第 228 条，可能造成的结果是，只有在公职人员的行为造成重大损害时（见下文）才能确定该公职人员侵犯财产的刑事责任，而《公约》中没有这一要求。
The embezzlement, misappropriation or other diversion of property by a public official is criminalized through article 228 (“Abuse of Office”); article 183 (“Misappropriation of Property”); and article 184 (“Squandering of Property”) CC.
The review team noted that the public official as perpetrator of the offence was only enshrined in the typology of abuse of office and that, further, articles 183-184 CC refer to “another’s property” in general and not to property entrusted to the public official by virtue of his/her position. The Lithuanian authorities clarified that articles 183 and 184 CC did not make a distinction between the private or public sector. If the relevant offences are committed through abuse of office, the established court practice is to apply article 228 CC in concurrence with articles 183
and 184. The diversion of property by a public official is not criminalized as a separate offence. Such an act can again be prosecuted under the provisions of article 228 CC (“Abuse of Office”).
The reviewers argued in favour of putting in place ad hoc criminalization provisions to cover acts of embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official. This is also because the analogous application of article 228 CC may lead to the establishment of criminal responsibility for diversion of property by a
public official only when the acts have caused major damage (see below), while the Convention does not foresee this requirement.