1) Arvydas ANUŠAUSKAS;

2) Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS;

3) Vytautas BOGUŠIS;

4) Rimantas Jonas DAGYS;

5) Kęstutis DAUKŠYS;

6) Valentinas MAZURONIS;

7) Juozas OLEKAS;

8) Jurgis RAZMA;

9) Julius SABATAUSKAS;

10) Stasys ŠEDBARAS;

11) Žilvinas ŠILGALIS;

12) Vidmantas ŽIEMELIS.

1) whether the legal acts regulating activities of commercial banks and specialised banks operating in the Republic of Lithuania, foreign banks operating in the Republic of Lithuania and their branches as well as the procedure of supervision thereof create preconditions for stable, reliable, effective and secure functioning of the banking sector, and also whether the banks had and continue to have the right to offer securities which were called "deposit certificates" and whether as such they could be left not covered by deposit insurance; 

2) whether the supervision carried out by state institutions of the commercial banks and specialised banks operating in the Republic of Lithuania, foreign banks operating in the Republic of Lithuania as well as their branches has been and is appropriate and effective, and also whether the close relatives of the heads of these state institutions and their deputies, heads of the departments of such institutions and their deputies as well as members of the boards thereof worked lawfully and whether they are likely to still lawfully work with the legal persons associated with the said banks;

3) when the Bank of Lithuania started negotiations with the administrator of AB bankas Snoras, Simon Freakley, who and when initiated the conclusion of the contract with the temporary administrator of AB bank Snoras, when the temporary administrator began planning his trip to Lithuania, when and what information about AB bankas Snoras he received and who furnished this information to him;

4) according to what criteria and under what conditions the remuneration was set and paid to the temporary administrator of AB bankas Snoras and his team and what was the amount of this remuneration;

5) according to what criteria and under what conditions, following the initiation of the bankruptcy proceedings of AB bankas Snoras, the remuneration was set and paid to the temporary administrator of AB bankas Snoras (and to third parties contracted by him) and what was the amount of this remuneration;

6) whether the actual activities of AB bankas Snoras have been previously suspended in Lithuania or other countries due to inspections of AB bankas Snoras; whether the termination of discharge of all the obligations of AB bankas Snoras has not caused even greater damage to the creditors of AB bankas Snoras and the bank itself;

7) how to value the activities of the auditing firm Ernst & Young Baltic which performed the audit of the bank and its conclusions on the bank’s financial statements; whether there are any statutory grounds for assigning the performance of an investigation into the audit of AB bankas Snoras performed by the auditing firm Ernst & Young Baltic to the Authority of Audit and Accounting;

8) what is the actual lack of assets of AB bankas Snoras, why the representatives of the Bank of Lithuania provided different numbers (in the radio programme Akiračiai on 18 November 2011, member of the Board of the Bank of Lithuania Audrius Misevičius stated that the lack of net assets only amounted to about LTL 800 million, chairperson of the Bank of Lithuania Vitas Vasiliauskas first indicated that the lack amounted to LTL 1 billion and later to LTL 3.4 billion); what are the reasons why the officially published amounts of asset value loss changed within a week: from LTL 1 billion to LTL 3.4 billion as determined by the temporary administrator of AB bankas Snoras; what are the reasons why the temporary administrator continued to publish information on the bank’s website that AB bankas Snoras was solvent; what are the reasons why the Bank of Lithuania failed to notice the respective changes in the value of assets;

9) what are the reasons behind the decision on the taking over of the shares of AB bankas Snoras for public needs instead of applying the regular (applied during the banking crisis in 1995–1996) effective laws on the supervision of activities of banks, i.e., what are the reasons why other sanctions laid down in the effective laws applicable to banks were not applied in respect of AB bankas Snoras instead of taking over of the shares for public needs; what are the reasons for restricting the activities of AB bankas Snoras (declaration of moratorium) on 16 November 2011 without prior assessment of the condition of its assets;

10) what are the reasons for the appearance of difference between the amounts of asset value loss (LTL 3.4 billion) and the possible claims in respect of the former principal shareholders (about LTL 800 million);

11) whether there have been any cases of abuse where members of the Seimas, their close relatives and spouses, members of the Government, their close relatives and spouses, members of the Board of the Bank of Lithuania, their close relatives and spouses, taking advantage of the information available to them and their official position, withdrew deposits from AB bankas Snoras in advance prior to winding-up of its activities;

12) what measures need to be taken to ensure maximum protection of interests of all customers of AB bankas Snoras and adequate control of actions of state institutions;

13) whether the former shareholders of AB bankas Snoras, other executives and/or persons representing their interests directly or through third parties have not attempted to influence politicians and law enforcement institutions carrying out the investigation with a view to undermining the process of extradition of the former shareholders of AB bankas Snoras in court in the United Kingdom;

14) whether the members of the Seimas who have signed a petition to the Constitutional Court requesting it to examine the compliance of certain norms of laws amending the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, the Law on Insurance of Deposits and Liabilities to Investors and the Law on Banks with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania have not confused public and private interests.