FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The Commission finds that the fact remains unclear why the subject has not filed a charge of "Cleaning the proceeds of a criminal offense..." against Pëllumb Gjoka...
The prosecutor who closed Pellumb Gjoka's file has faced problems before the KPK. Franceskina Lekani appeared yesterday in a hearing at the Independent Qualification Commission, where, in addition to numerous problems with wealth, she also faced difficulties in the criterion of professionalism.
She once had one of the most important files in her hand, but she quietly closed it. It is about the robbery of properties in Velipoja by the government's strategic investor, Pëllumb Gjoka. Gjoka stole the land from a 99-year-old woman, through falsification of documents. Drane Hotaj was robbed of property on the coastline through forgery, fraud and pressure. She reported the case to the Prosecutor's Office of Shkodra, and the case was taken by Franceskina Lekani, who threw the report in the bin.
In the KPK, she faced questions about the case in question. The Commission finds that the fact remains unclear why the subject has not filed a charge of "Cleaning the proceeds of a criminal offense..." against a person who has been proven to have benefited from 39 ha with forged documents, as well as why the confiscation of this property has not been carried out. Although the commissioners did not mention it. It is about the case of Pigeon Breast.
But the prosecutor's justification was that it was not possible to identify the person who committed the falsification of the document, therefore the dismissal of the case was requested. She claimed that they had notified the State Bar to request the return of the land, but had received no response. Then the file passed to SPAK and they were the ones who discovered the scandal.
Franceskina Lekani started her career in the justice system in 1994 as a military prosecutor and since 2004 she has been working at the Shkodër Judicial District Prosecutor's Office, where she has recently held the role of deputy director.
According to BIRN, the Commission raises doubts about the presentation of false circumstances for two apartments in the city of Shkodra with an area of 47 m2 and 74 m2, bought by the subject's father in 2001 and 2004, in which the prosecutor Lekani is a co-owner. As the source of the creation of the two apartments, the subject has declared his brother's income from work in emigration in Italy, for which it was found that he had no legal sources for making these investments.
According to the KPK, there are doubts about the veracity of the subject's statement that she is a co-owner with her mother and brother in these assets, trying to present false circumstances that attempt to avoid from control a relationship of a different nature, which is of full ownership of these assets.
The Commission bases these doubts on the facts that Lekani has lived in these apartments since the moment of purchasing the property; that she appears as a co-owner with a 1/3 tax share, while according to the legal provisions in force, as an heir of 1/3 of half of the assets owned by the father, she should have appeared with a 1/ 6 shares; that according to the declaration the only contributor to these assets is the brother who has not used or registered them in his name; as well as for the fact that he was financially unable to buy them in the respective years.
Also, the couple said that Lekan's explanation seems unconvincing, that his brother did not register them in his name because of the mentality that exists. "The brother's purchase of some real estate, which is neither used by him nor generates income, seems suspicious. At the time of the purchase of the two apartments, the subject appeared in the family certificate with her father who is the owner of these assets and they actually lived together", the couple argued, among other things.
Prosecutor Lekani, who appeared at the KPK with a legal representative, disputed the findings of the KPK. She claimed that the registration of 1/3 of the assets in her name was done by the notary according to the law. But during the questions, chairman Hamitaj observed that the notary had determined correctly, that he would benefit from 1/3 of the decedent's share and not 1/3 of the entire property. After this finding, the subject and her defender said that it had been registered in this form by the mortgage. They brought as an argument the fact that there had been no objections from family members.
Lekani emphasized that he had a very good relationship with his brother and that he had bought the first two apartments. She stated that she was ready to give up, but that her brother had not accepted to have them in his name, because of his mentality, "BIRN" reports.
Regarding the brother's income, the subject claimed that he had left for Italy in 1992 and that he had worked informally in construction until 1996, after which he secured a part-time contract. According to Lekani, the brother had a considerable income from working in construction and had always sent different amounts with the people who came to Albania.
Doubts similar to those of the previous apartments were also raised for the purchase of two others in Shkodër for the value of 113 thousand euros, assets that were ordered by the subject's father in 2011. Also, the arguments for the suspicions of the subject's efforts in the presentation of false circumstances that tend to avoid from control its full ownership of these assets, were based on similar findings.
The Commission notes that at the time of the purchase of these assets, Lekani continued to appear in the family certificate with the father, who is the purchaser, and they actually lived together. The order contract was signed only by the father, although the subject turned out to be a co-borrower for a loan of 3.5 million lek that served as a source for the payment of the apartments - a loan that continues to be repaid periodically by the prosecutor Lick.
The financial analysis has resulted in a financial impossibility of 2.5 million lek for the payment of installments since the payment of tax obligations for the income secured from the sale of a house in the village has not been proven, as well as the payment of an installment in 2004 from the sale of this property.
The KPK calls the fact that about 44 thousand 500 euros was paid for these assets, against the price of 113 thousand euros reflected in the order contract. The claim that the subject's brother has carried out the expenses and works for the completion of this apartment, while he has not used it nor has he generated income from this property, is also suspicious.
Lekani stated in 2016 in the ILDKPKI that one of these apartments was bought for the account of his brother who lives in Italy, but the KPK finds that the subject did not verify this claim in the periodical declaration of that year, and it does not result that the brother contributed to the purchase of assets. Even in this case, the KPK considers the fact unclear as to why the subject was registered as a co-owner with 1/3 of the taxable share, when she was supposed to dispose of only 1/6 of the property according to the law .
The subject stated that his brother had thought of having a house in Albania. Meanwhile, she claimed that the father had provided income from the exploitation of the land.
Lekani denied suspicions of a cover-up. She emphasized that she had declared the apartments even though she had no legal obligation. Regarding the non-payment of part of the price of the two apartments, the subject claimed that the brother had no place to make the payment, as the companies had their bank accounts blocked.
For the non-payment of obligations for the income secured from the sale of the apartment in the village, the subject claimed that he did not know that he had to make such a payment. She emphasized that it is already proven that the apartment is owned by someone else.
Lini një Përgjigje