Lithuanian authorities are investigating whether the Russia-owned discount supermarket chain Mere, forced to close following European Union sanctions, has re-emerged under a new brand. The country’s Minister of the Economy and Innovation has asked the Financial Crime Investigation Service (FNTT) to determine whether newly opened Ola stores are linked to sanctioned Russian business interests and represent an attempt to circumvent EU sanctions.
The investigation follows speculation on social media that Mere has effectively reopened under a different name. Market analysts say such a development would not be unprecedented, pointing to a similar pattern in Poland after sanctions were imposed there.
Following the European Union’s latest sanctions package, Mere stores ceased trading in both Lithuania and Latvia. The sanctions target the chain’s owner, Sergei Shneider, together with all shareholders of the Svetofor Group, which operates the Mere brand.
Before closing, Mere operated nearly 30 stores across Lithuania, employing around 250 people.
Customers expressed disappointment at the closures, saying the chain had provided low-cost groceries rather than exclusively Russian products.
“We used to come here once a week to do our shopping. Food was a bit cheaper,” said customer Petras.
People interviewed by LRT said products from Ukraine, Latvia and Lithuania were widely available alongside goods from other countries. Many said they hoped another low-cost retailer would replace Mere.
Attention quickly turned to a new discount chain, Ola, which opened a store in Siauliai shortly before Mere ceased trading. Customers said the product range, prices and overall shopping experience closely resembled those of Mere.
In Latvia, Ola stores have also appeared in premises previously occupied by Mere.
Perhaps most strikingly, the two retailers use almost identical slogans promoting lower prices.
A woman identifying herself to LRT Radio as one of Ola’s managers acknowledged that she had previously worked for Mere and admitted the business model was similar.
“Yes, they’re similar – so what? We’re not connected to our former colleagues. We’re separate businesses. The model is similar, and we’re not hiding that. This is business, not politics. We stepped away from that. When everything began, we realised where it was heading and left. We were employees,” he said.
The Minister of the Economy and Innovation Edvinas Griksas has asked the FNTT to establish whether the Latvian owner of the Ola store in Siauliai has links to the sanctioned owners of Mere.
He argues that the issue extends beyond ordinary commercial regulation.
“There is no place in Lithuania for investment from this kind of capital,” he said.
“The key question is whether these newly opened Ola stores have links to the owners of Mere,” he added, referring to efforts to enforce sanctions. “It’s rather like a basketball match between sanctions and sanctions evasion. The challenge is to score more points than those trying to get around the rules.”
The minister said employees affected by Mere’s closure should have little difficulty finding work elsewhere, noting that vacancies in Lithuania’s retail sector outnumbered the chain’s former workforce by around ten to one.
Retail analysts say the similarities between the two chains may indicate that contingency plans had been prepared before sanctions came into force.
“The products are the same, the suppliers are the same, the prices are the same. They’re not reinventing anything,” said Arunas Vizickas, founder of retail analysis platform Pricer.lt.
Mindaugas Petrauskas, Head of Financial Crime Prevention at Amlyze, believes advance planning is entirely plausible.
“It’s entirely possible that preparations were made in advance, anticipating sanctions against this group. New companies and similar stores could have been established with ownership structures designed to conceal any sanctioned individuals.”
Market specialists note that warehouses, logistics infrastructure and supplier networks linked to Russian operators remain intact, making it easier to launch successor businesses.
They also argue that establishing any corporate links should not prove especially difficult.
“Investigators can identify the suppliers and ask on what basis they agreed to supply goods. Suppliers don’t usually extend trade credit to unknown companies,” says Vizickas.
Analysts point to Poland as an example of how sanctioned businesses may attempt to continue operating under new identities.
After Mere was sanctioned there last year, investigators discovered that the business was operating through several companies using different names.
“Businesses directly linked to the Shneider family, where they were shareholders, were sanctioned immediately. But over time new clones appeared, associated with businessman Viktor Lipin, who had Lithuanian roots, with companies registered in his name. We may now be seeing a similar scenario with Ola, although the ownership structure could be considerably more complex,” said Vizickas.
Petrauskas says sanctions and attempts to evade them inevitably evolve together.
“There will always be attempts to circumvent sanctions. But the longer and more complex those chains become, the more expensive it is for those subject to sanctions.”
Alongside EU sanctions, Latvia has introduced additional national restrictions, banning books, newspapers, toys, clothing and footwear manufactured in Russia or Belarus.
“I believe the impact will be minimal,” says Maris Andzans, Director of the Centre for Geopolitical Studies in Riga.
A Latvian media investigation found that some shops were still selling Russian-made cocoa, mayonnaise and beer, as well as Belarusian kvass.
One shopper told reporters: “It says it’s from Russia. Whether it is or isn’t doesn’t matter to me. What’s important is that the product is good.”
Latvian politicians had considered banning all trade with Russia but ultimately restricted only selected categories of goods. Experts say the tougher rhetoric reflects political pressure ahead of parliamentary elections.
“Politicians are under greater pressure than in Lithuania or Estonia because elections are approaching. Political parties want to demonstrate that they are taking a tougher line on Russia,” says Andzans.
Petrauskas argues that the measures are largely symbolic.
“They are not especially effective, but they demonstrate to the public that such trade is not tolerated and that Latvia wants to adopt a tougher position than the European Union as a whole.”
Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys said Latvia introduced its latest measures without consulting neighbouring Baltic States. “Measures agreed jointly by countries in the region are more effective. Measures adopted at EU level are more effective still. And they are most effective when co-ordinated with the United States and our other allies.”
According to experts, the goods covered by Latvia’s new restrictions account for only a small share of imports, while exports to Russia remain considerably larger.
“In my view, trade with Russia and Belarus is both dangerous and immoral. Above all, immoral. All three Baltic States have recognised Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism,” said Andzans.
Although imports from Russia into the Baltic States have fallen by more than 90% since before the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, officials acknowledge that sanctions continue to lag behind increasingly sophisticated methods of evasion.
“Goods usually move directly from point A to point B, but the paperwork may pass through points C and D. Whereas intermediary countries used to be Russia’s immediate neighbours, they are now much further away, including India, China and Brazil,” said Petrauskas.
Budrys also argues that, despite the adoption of the EU’s 21st sanctions package, the United States has recently moved more quickly than Brussels in tightening restrictions on Russia.
Meanwhile, Latvia plans to remove road signs directing motorists towards Russia and Belarus.
Lithuania has retained signs pointing to Minsk, although they now include additional wording: “Minsk – occupied by the Kremlin”. (LRT)