Aferistė Toma Radionovaitė - net filmuose taip nebūna

Summary

Skirmantas Malinauskas reports on Toma Radionovaitė, formerly known as Tamara Radionova, whom he describes as a repeat fraudster. According to the presenter and interviewees, she allegedly posed as a lawyer, wedding planner, and other service providers, using different names and accounts to gain victims’ trust and take their money. The episode compares her methods to Catch Me If You Can, while stressing that the stories come from real people in Lithuania.

Several interviewees describe alleged schemes:

• A homeowners’ community and Inga: After a contractor allegedly took about €20,000 from a residential community for work that was not completed, Inga sought legal help. Toma, using another identity and presenting herself as a lawyer, allegedly collected documents and charged Inga for purported legal work, including court-related expenses. Inga says she paid about €1,450 without receiving the promised results. The report says Toma also contacted the contractor while posing as Inga’s lawyer, negotiated a settlement, and allegedly kept the money without informing Inga or the community. An invoice sent to the wrong client helped expose the scheme.
• Greta and Tomas’s wedding: The couple hired an “all-inclusive” wedding planner after seeing an online advertisement. They say they paid roughly €8,000 toward a wedding budget of €5,000–€10,000, but the planner allegedly faked payment confirmations and did not book vendors or the venue. The couple discovered this by contacting suppliers directly. Their families borrowed money to arrange the wedding themselves, and it ultimately went ahead.
• Apartment rental: Real-estate broker Edita describes Toma allegedly showing a fabricated payment confirmation to secure an apartment, then making excuses about delayed international bank transfers. The report says she moved in without paying and used claims about lengthy eviction proceedings to pressure landlords into letting her stay. It also describes a purported employment contract she provided as reassurance.
• Restaurant orders: An unnamed food-business representative says a customer ordered meals and drinks, then supplied what appeared to be a payment confirmation. The food was delivered, but the money did not arrive. The interviewee says the loss was several hundred euros; the presenter also mentions another business that reportedly lost around €10,000.
• A car dispute and supposed legal representation: Mindaugas and Aušra say they bought a used car with a serious engine problem they believe had been concealed. After seeking legal help, they say they paid Toma, who was allegedly posing as a lawyer, for document preparation and representation. They lost the case and were left with court costs of more than €5,000, in addition to the money paid for the supposed legal services. According to the report, their complaint helped prompt a pre-trial investigation.
• Jelena’s immigration case: Jelena says she hired Toma, under another identity, to help with paperwork concerning her Belarusian husband’s right to live in Lithuania. She paid for more than 30 court hearings that the episode says had not actually taken place. Her family reportedly lost more than €6,000, much of it borrowed.

Across these accounts, Malinauskas highlights recurring tactics: adopting plausible professional identities, building trust through frequent and reassuring messages, sending forged documents or payment screenshots, and requesting money in incremental amounts for believable-sounding expenses. He warns that clients can be especially vulnerable when they lack expertise in areas such as law or event planning. His practical advice is to verify payments directly with the recipient and independently check documents, bookings, and professional credentials.

The episode says Toma had previously been convicted and was facing further court proceedings, while victims reported that alleged fraud continued. Malinauskas argues that changing names can make it harder for potential victims to discover someone’s history, and that public awareness is an important way to prevent further harm. The video also briefly includes an unrelated anecdote about a gas-station theft and the widely reported case of Viktor Babajevas.

Presenters and Contributors

• Skirmantas Malinauskas — presenter and reporter.
• Inga — interviewee describing the homeowners’ community and alleged legal-services fraud.
• Greta and Tomas — interviewees describing the wedding-planning scheme.
• Edita — real-estate broker and interviewee discussing the apartment rental.
• Jelena — interviewee describing the alleged immigration-case fraud.
• Mindaugas and Aušra — interviewees describing the car dispute and alleged legal-services fraud.
• An unnamed food-business representative — interviewee describing unpaid restaurant orders.