{"id":51963,"date":"2018-09-03T15:31:07","date_gmt":"2018-09-03T13:31:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/?p=51963"},"modified":"2019-04-23T22:01:25","modified_gmt":"2019-04-23T22:01:25","slug":"shkarkimi-i-artan-lazaj-kpk-gjeti-fshehje-pasurie-dhe-deklarime-te-rreme","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/shkarkimi-i-artan-lazaj-kpk-gjeti-fshehje-pasurie-dhe-deklarime-te-rreme\/2018\/09\/03\/","title":{"rendered":"Shkarkimi i Artan Lazaj, KPK gjeti \u201cfshehje pasurie dhe deklarime t\u00eb rreme\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Vendimi i zbardhur i Komisionit tregon se gjyqtarit t\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs dhe ish-an\u00ebtarit t\u00eb KQZ-s\u00eb, Artan Lazaj i ishin gjetur 17 shkelje p\u00ebr kriterin e pasuris\u00eb, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb k\u00ebrkesat paraprake t\u00eb tij konsiderohen p\u00ebrpjekje p\u00ebr t\u00eb penguar procesin.<!--more--><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_50290\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-50290\" style=\"width: 519px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/Artan-Lazaj-1.jpg\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-large wp-image-50290\" src=\"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/Artan-Lazaj-1-519x400.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"519\" height=\"400\" data-id=\"50290\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-50290\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Gjyqtari i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs, Artan Lazaj dhe avokati i tij n\u00eb seanc\u00eb d\u00ebgjimore p\u00ebrball\u00eb Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit. Foto:LSA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit e argumenton shkarkimin e gjyqtarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs, Artan Lazaj me 17 shkelje t\u00eb gjetura n\u00eb kriterin e pasuris\u00eb, t\u00eb cilat p\u00ebrfshijn\u00eb mosdeklarime, deklarime kontradiktore, kontrata fiktive dhe madje deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb para Komisionit. Vendimi i zbardhur i trup\u00ebs gjykuese t\u00eb kryesuar nga Brunilda Bekteshi, me relator Lulzim Hamitaj dhe an\u00ebtar Olsi Komici e cil\u00ebson t\u00eb mjaftuesh\u00ebm hetimin vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr kriterin e pasuris\u00eb-ndon\u00ebse gjyqtari Lazaj dhe avokati i tij pretenduan t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn.<\/p>\n<p>Lazaj q\u00eb u p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsua vet\u00eb n\u00eb seancat d\u00ebgjimore bashk\u00eb me avokatin Sokol Hazizaj, i kund\u00ebrshtoi gjetjet e Komisionit. Gjykat\u00ebsi u mbrojt kryesisht duke deklaruar se \u201cka b\u00ebr\u00eb gabime t\u00eb shumta, por q\u00eb ato jan\u00eb harresa, neglizhenca ose pasakt\u00ebsi, nuk jan\u00eb veprime t\u00eb q\u00ebllimshme dhe nuk kan\u00eb pasur si objektiv apo pasoj\u00eb fshehjen e pasuris\u00eb\u201d. N\u00eb nj\u00eb rast ai tha se arsyet e mosdeklarimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb pasurie q\u00eb i takonte bashk\u00ebshortes kishte qen\u00eb e drejta zakonore sipas t\u00eb cil\u00ebs \u201cgruaja e martuar nuk kishte pjes\u00eb takuese n\u00eb sht\u00ebpin\u00eb e prind\u00ebrve\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Por p\u00ebr KPK-n\u00eb, argumentet e p\u00ebrdoruar nga Lazaj nuk q\u00ebndronin, madje Komisioni v\u00eb n\u00eb dukje n\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur se ato shtuan paqart\u00ebsit\u00eb mbi pasurin\u00eb dhe nd\u00ebshkuan gjykat\u00ebsin.\u00a0 \u201cFaktet e ekspozuara si m\u00eb lart, t\u00eb konstatuara nga Komisioni dhe t\u00eb pranuara nga subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit, nuk mund t\u00eb justifikohen nga nj\u00eb gjyqtar, dhe aq m\u00eb tep\u00ebr me argumentin e zgjedhjes s\u00eb vet\u00ebdijshme p\u00ebr respektimin e nj\u00eb tradite zakonore, duke mos p\u00ebrmbushur, n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb, me dashje dhe paramendim detyrimet ligjore\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb argumentimin e KPK-s\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Lexo m\u00eb shum\u00eb: <\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"\/vetingu\/?p=50288\"><strong>KPK e akuzon p\u00ebr deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb, por Lazaj vazhdon luft\u00ebn p\u00ebr konfirmim<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"\/vetingu\/?p=50208\"><strong>Skeda e pasuris\u00eb s\u00eb deklaruar-Artan Lazaj-gjyqtar i Gjykat\u00ebs Tiran\u00eb<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Tentativa p\u00ebr shtyrje<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Problemet n\u00eb pasurin\u00eb e ish-an\u00ebtarit t\u00eb KQZ dhe m\u00eb pas Gjykat\u00ebsit t\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs Artan Lazaj ishin gjetur sipas Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit q\u00eb nga hetimi i Inspektoriatit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb t\u00eb Deklarimit dhe Kontrollit t\u00eb Pasuris\u00eb dhe Konfliktit t\u00eb Interesit (ILDKPKI), por q\u00eb sipas vendimit t\u00eb zbardhur u theksuan kur Komisioni kreu hetimin e tij.<\/p>\n<p>Madje n\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur b\u00ebhet me dije se vet\u00eb pohimet e gjykat\u00ebsit para KPK apo p\u00ebrmes post\u00ebs elektronike shtuan kontradiktat dhe r\u00ebnduan pozicionin e tij. N\u00eb vendimin e KPK-s\u00eb p\u00ebr shkarkimin e Lazajt\u00a0 b\u00ebhet me dije se pasi ishte v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dijeni p\u00ebr mbyllje t\u00eb hetimit vet\u00ebm mbi kriterin e pasuris\u00eb dhe me gjas\u00eb edhe hamend\u00ebsimit t\u00eb rezultatit pas k\u00ebsaj mbyllje, Lazaj tentoi t\u00eb shtynte procesin.<\/p>\n<p>KPK thot\u00eb se fillimisht ai kishte k\u00ebrkuar q\u00eb t\u00eb prishej vendimi p\u00ebr mbyllje t\u00eb hetimit, nd\u00ebrsa kishte k\u00ebmb\u00ebngulur n\u00eb seanc\u00ebn e par\u00eb d\u00ebgjimore q\u00eb t\u00eb hetohej edhe n\u00eb dy kriteret e tjera.<\/p>\n<p>Kur KPK vendosi ta rr\u00ebzonte k\u00ebt\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00eb si t\u00eb pamb\u00ebshtetur n\u00eb ligj, Lazaj k\u00ebrkoi p\u00ebrjashtimin e trupit gjykuese dhe pasi kjo k\u00ebrkes\u00eb iu rr\u00ebzua ai b\u00ebri nj\u00eb p\u00ebrpjekje t\u00eb tret\u00eb duke k\u00ebrkuar p\u00ebrjashtimin e kryesueses Brunilda Bekteshi. Lazaj paraqiti k\u00ebt\u00eb her\u00eb si argument faktin q\u00eb Bekteshi, n\u00eb nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb kur ishte avokate, kishte k\u00ebrkuar p\u00ebrjashtimin e tij nga trupi gjykues.<\/p>\n<p>KPK refuzoi edhe k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn e tret\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa u shpreh se pas k\u00ebsaj ishte e qart\u00eb q\u00eb Lazaj po synonte t\u00eb zvarriste procesin. \u201cU konstatua nj\u00eb tentativ\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb zvarritur procesin, n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb k\u00ebrkesash strategjikisht t\u00eb paramenduara dhe t\u00eb parap\u00ebrgatitura\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur, nd\u00ebrsa theksohet se \u201cN\u00eb lidhje me k\u00ebt\u00eb sjellje, trupi gjykues rezervoi t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn mbi vendosjen e mundshme t\u00eb nj\u00eb gjobe, n\u00eb baz\u00eb t\u00eb nenit 34 t\u00eb Kodit t\u00eb Procedur\u00ebs Civile\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Lazaj sidoqoft\u00eb ia doli t\u00eb fitonte shtyrje disa ditore, q\u00eb si\u00e7 del nga rezultati nuk e ndihmoi gjykat\u00ebsin.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Shkeljet <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Vendimi i zbardhur i KPK rendit 17 shkelje, secila prej t\u00eb cilave \u201cshkarkuese\u201d, duke filluar nga mosdeklarimi i 4.9 milion\u00eb lek\u00ebve t\u00eb shpenzuara n\u00eb vitin 2009 dhe 50.000 eurove n\u00eb vitin 2010 n\u00eb favor t\u00eb nj\u00eb kompanie nd\u00ebrtimi.<\/p>\n<p>KPK thot\u00eb se bazuar n\u00eb deklarimet e tij, Lazaj nuk kishte \u201cburime financiare t\u00eb ligjshme n\u00eb dat\u00ebn 18 gusht 2010 p\u00ebr pages\u00ebn e 50.000 eurove, pasi t\u00eb ardhurat nga shitja e sht\u00ebpis\u00eb, e kryer m\u00eb 19 n\u00ebntor 2010, ishin t\u00eb disponueshme tre muaj m\u00eb von\u00eb\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Problemet sipas KPK u konstatuan q\u00eb n\u00eb deklarimin e \u00e7mimeve t\u00eb ndryshme p\u00ebr apartamentin e deklaruar nga Lazaj. N\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur rezulton se ai kishte deklaruar apartamentin me vler\u00eb 120 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn periodike t\u00eb vitit 2011,\u00a0 nd\u00ebrsa n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn veting e kishte deklaruar at\u00eb 129 mij\u00eb euro. Lazaj e shpjegoi diferenc\u00ebn me punimet shtes\u00eb t\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb nga kompania nd\u00ebrtuese, por KPK gjeti se ai nuk mund ta dokumentonte k\u00ebt\u00eb dhe as t\u00eb provonte burimin e nj\u00eb pjese t\u00eb t\u00eb ardhurave p\u00ebr blerjen apo m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e pagesave.<\/p>\n<p>Mbrojtja e tij p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb letre nga kompania nd\u00ebrtuese q\u00eb thoshte se pagesat ishin b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebste p\u00ebr disa vite u konsiderua problematike, pasi KPK gjeti p\u00ebrmes bankave transferat q\u00eb e p\u00ebrg\u00ebnjeshtronin k\u00ebt\u00eb pretendim.<\/p>\n<p>KPK gjeti po ashtu se Lazaj deklaroi dy her\u00eb shitjen e nj\u00eb apartamenti 90 mij\u00eb euro. Deklaratat e gjykat\u00ebsit ishin sipas KPK kontradiktore, ai deklaron nj\u00ebher\u00eb p\u00ebrfitimin e shum\u00ebs n\u00eb vitin 2008 si gjendje Cash, pastaj thot\u00eb se ajo u likujdua n\u00eb vitin 2010. KPK gjeti se n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast Lazaj kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb edhe nj\u00eb kontrat\u00eb fiktive me t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin bler\u00ebs. Pretendimi i gjykat\u00ebsit se kontrata e dyt\u00eb ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb p\u00ebr shkak se bler\u00ebsit i kishte kaluar koha dhe nuk mund ta regjistronte m\u00eb pasurin\u00eb n\u00eb hipotek\u00eb u rr\u00ebzua nga KPK. Kjo e fundit thot\u00eb n\u00eb vendim se q\u00ebndrimet e Lazajt kishin shtuar problemet duke e cil\u00ebsuar fiktivitetin e kontrat\u00ebs si nj\u00eb veprim q\u00eb r\u00ebndonte figur\u00ebn e gjykat\u00ebsit.<\/p>\n<p>Sipas KPK-s\u00eb, po ashtu Lazaj kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb deklarim t\u00eb pasakt\u00eb dhe t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm n\u00eb lidhje me \u00e7mimin e blerjes s\u00eb nj\u00eb apartamenti n\u00eb vitin 2004. N\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur thuhet se vet\u00eb gjyqtari \u201cka paraqitur deklarime t\u00eb pasakta dhe me p\u00ebrmbajtje t\u00eb ndryshme nga t\u00eb dh\u00ebnat e kontratave t\u00eb n\u00ebnshkruara prej tij\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>KPK thot\u00eb po ashtu se Lazaj nuk kishte plot\u00ebsuar sakt\u00eb Deklarat\u00ebn-Vetting duke l\u00ebn\u00eb her\u00eb pas here bosh pjes\u00ebn ku duhej t\u00eb paraqitej burimi p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb e krijuar dhe n\u00eb disa raste duke b\u00ebr\u00eb deklarim \u201ct\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm dhe n\u00eb mosp\u00ebrputhje me deklaratat periodike, si dhe me deklarimet e dh\u00ebna prej tij n\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje t\u00eb pyet\u00ebsor\u00ebve t\u00eb Komisionit\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Sipas vendimit t\u00eb zbardhur, Lazaj dha edhe gjat\u00eb seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore \u201cp\u00ebrgjigje t\u00eb pav\u00ebrteta, t\u00eb ndryshme dhe kontradiktore midis tyre\u201d. Po ashtu KPK rr\u00ebzoi referimin e Lazajt n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00eb zakonore dhe cil\u00ebsoi fshehje pasurie mosdeklarimin e pjes\u00ebs takuese t\u00eb bashk\u00ebshortes n\u00eb sht\u00ebpin\u00eb e prind\u00ebrve.\u00a0 KPK arsyetoi se pasuria duhej t\u00eb deklarohej dhe se e drejta zakonore mund t\u00eb zbatohej duke kryer nj\u00eb dhurim formal.<\/p>\n<p>Po ashtu, KPK gjeti probleme n\u00eb deklarimin e pjes\u00ebve takuese n\u00eb disa pasuri, p\u00ebrfshi nj\u00eb tok\u00eb kullot\u00eb n\u00eb Himar\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb cil\u00ebn gjykat\u00ebsi kishte th\u00ebn\u00eb se zot\u00ebronte 25 p\u00ebr qind, por q\u00eb sipas hetimit rezultoi se ishte e gjitha n\u00eb pron\u00ebsi t\u00eb tij. Probleme u gjet\u00ebn edhe n\u00eb transaksionet p\u00ebr nj\u00eb makin\u00eb. KPK gjeti se makina ishte bler\u00eb vet\u00ebm 125 mij\u00eb lek\u00eb dhe shitur pes\u00eb vjet m\u00eb von\u00eb 5 mij\u00eb euro, nj\u00eb transaksion t\u00eb cilin e cil\u00ebsoi \u201canormal\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Argumenti i Lazajt se makin\u00ebn e kishte bler\u00eb nga Komisioni Qendror i Zgjedhjeve dhe kishte p\u00ebrfituar \u00e7mim t\u00eb lir\u00eb, u p\u00ebrdor nga KPK kund\u00ebr tij. \u201cGjithsesi, nga sa m\u00eb lart, rezulton q\u00eb n\u00eb procesin e privatizimit, pra t\u00eb blerjes s\u00eb autovetur\u00ebs, ka pasur nj\u00eb trajtim preferencial, t\u00eb padeklaruar nga ana e subjektit,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur.<\/p>\n<p>Ai po ashtu rezultoi se kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb n\u00eb Deklarat\u00ebn-Vetting, po ashtu edhe n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn e vitit 2003, p\u00ebr shitjen e nj\u00eb apartamenti n\u00eb vitin 2001. Lazaj e kishte deklaruar shitjen fillimisht n\u00eb vitin 2003, nd\u00ebrsa m\u00eb pas e deklaroi n\u00eb vitin 2012. KPK pranoi q\u00eb n\u00eb rastin e fundit deklarimi mund t\u00eb ishte lapsus, por cil\u00ebsoi se fakti q\u00eb gjykat\u00ebsi kishte deklaruar pron\u00ebsi mbi apartamentin n\u00eb vitin 2003, nd\u00ebrsa ai ishte shitur n\u00eb vitin 2001 i b\u00ebnte t\u00eb pabesueshme argumentet e tij.<\/p>\n<p>KPK gjeti se Lazaj kishte deklarim t\u00eb paplot\u00eb dhe t\u00eb rrem\u00eb p\u00ebr vitet 2015, 2016 dhe 2017, nd\u00ebrsa argumenton se ai nuk ka pasur t\u00eb ardhura \u201cp\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrballuar blerjet e pasurive t\u00eb paluajtshme, gjendjen e likuiditeteve n\u00eb bank\u00eb dhe cash n\u00eb sht\u00ebpi, si dhe p\u00ebr t\u00eb kryer shpenzimet jetike dhe ato t\u00eb deklaruara\u201d, p\u00ebr shumic\u00ebn e viteve t\u00eb deklarimit nga 2003 deri n\u00eb 2017. Komisioni gjeti se n\u00eb mjaft raste, Lazaj nuk kishte deklaruar t\u00eb ardhura apo shpenzime deri n\u00eb 10 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb deklaratat vjetore apo at\u00eb veting.<\/p>\n<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Vendimi i zbardhur i Komisionit tregon se gjyqtarit t\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs dhe ish-an\u00ebtarit t\u00eb KQZ-s\u00eb, Artan Lazaj i ishin gjetur 17 shkelje p\u00ebr kriterin e pasuris\u00eb, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb k\u00ebrkesat paraprake t\u00eb tij konsiderohen p\u00ebrpjekje p\u00ebr t\u00eb penguar procesin.<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":69523,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,2],"tags":[],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/Artan-Lazaj-1-519x400.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51963"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/97"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51963"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51963\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61848,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51963\/revisions\/61848"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/69523"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}