Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit vendosi me shumic\u00eb votash m\u00eb 7 prill 2022 t\u00eb largoj\u00eb nga detyra prokuroren e Tiran\u00ebs, Eriselda Bala p\u00ebr problemet n\u00eb kriterin pasuris\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, Bala u vler\u00ebsua pozitivisht p\u00ebr past\u00ebrtin\u00eb e figur\u00ebs dhe profesionalizmin.<\/p>\n
Shumica e p\u00ebrb\u00ebr\u00eb nga kryesuesja Suela Zhegu dhe an\u00ebtarja Firdes Shuli arrit\u00ebn n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se prokurorja Bala kishte kryer deklarim t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb si dhe rezultoi me balanc\u00eb negative financiare n\u00eb blerjen e nj\u00eb apartamenti. Bekteshi n\u00eb pakic\u00eb e kund\u00ebrshton shkarkimin, duke \u00e7muar se Bala kishte arritur nivel t\u00eb besuesh\u00ebm edhe n\u00eb kriterin e pasuris\u00eb.<\/p>\n
Eriselda Bala e ka filluar karrier\u00ebn si magjistrate n\u00eb Prokurorin\u00eb e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Vlor\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2008 dhe nj\u00eb vit m\u00eb von\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb transferuar n\u00eb Prokurorin\u00eb e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Pogradec. N\u00eb vitin 2015 ajo \u00ebsht\u00eb em\u00ebruar si prokurore n\u00eb Prokurorin\u00eb e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Tiran\u00eb.<\/p>\n
Vler\u00ebsimi ndryshe p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb<\/strong><\/p>\n Sipas vendimit t\u00eb arsyetuar, shumica e Komisionit konkludon se prokurorja Bala nuk ka pasur mund\u00ebsi p\u00ebr blerjen e nj\u00eb apartamenti me sip\u00ebrfaqe 91.09 m2 n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb kundrejt \u00e7mimit 48 mij\u00eb euro, si dhe ka kryer deklarime t\u00eb rrem\u00eb p\u00ebr burimet e krijimit.<\/p>\n Pamund\u00ebsia financiare e krijimit t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj pasurie ka ardhur si rrjedhoj\u00eb e vler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb burimeve q\u00eb kan\u00eb sh\u00ebrbyer p\u00ebr shlyerjen e \u00e7mimit 48 mij\u00eb euro dhe koh\u00ebn kur jan\u00eb kryer pagesat. Shumica ka konstatuar deklarime dhe shpjegime kontradiktore lidhur me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e shlyerjes s\u00eb \u00e7mimit t\u00eb apartamentit, q\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtohen nga Bekteshi n\u00eb pakic\u00eb.<\/p>\n N\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn e porosis\u00eb s\u00eb vitit 2012 \u00ebsht\u00eb parashikuar se k\u00ebsti i par\u00eb n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 8000 euro do t\u00eb likujdohet menj\u00ebher\u00eb me firmosjen e kontrat\u00ebs; k\u00ebsti i dyt\u00eb 39 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb momentin e dor\u00ebzimit t\u00eb \u00e7el\u00ebsave dhe k\u00ebsti i tret\u00eb 1000 euro me n\u00ebnshkrimin e kontrat\u00ebs s\u00eb shitjes s\u00eb apartmentit. Nd\u00ebrsa n\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn e shitjes t\u00eb vitit 2015 parashikohet se vlera e apartamentit 48 mij\u00eb euro \u00ebsht\u00eb likujduar nga ana e bler\u00ebsit n\u00eb favor t\u00eb shit\u00ebsit n\u00eb llogarin\u00eb bankare t\u00eb k\u00ebtij t\u00eb fundit.<\/p>\n Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, nga korrespondenca e Komisionit me Drejtorin\u00eb e P\u00ebrgjithshme t\u00eb Parandalimit t\u00eb Pastrimit t\u00eb Parave jan\u00eb konstatuar raportime p\u00ebr dy transaksione t\u00eb kryera n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb qershor t\u00eb vitit 2012, konkretisht dy depozitime cash n\u00eb vlerat 33 mij\u00eb e 150 euro dhe 14 mij\u00eb e 850 euro, p\u00ebr llogari t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb nd\u00ebrtuese, me burim kursime familjare, nj\u00ebra prej t\u00eb cilave me p\u00ebrshkrimin\u201cp\u00ebr blerje apartamenti\u201d.<\/p>\n Sipas shumic\u00ebs, subjekti ka paraqitur tjet\u00ebr version p\u00ebr shlyerjen e \u00e7mimit t\u00eb apartamentit duke pretenduar se ka paguar n\u00eb\u00a0 maj t\u00eb vitit 2012 shum\u00ebn 8 mij\u00eb euro; 39 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb korrik t\u00eb atij viti dhe 1000 euro n\u00eb janar t\u00eb 2015-\u00ebs.<\/p>\n N\u00eb lidhje me pagesat e kryera n\u00eb qershor t\u00eb vitit 2012, Bala \u00ebsht\u00eb shprehur se \u00ebsht\u00eb vendosur n\u00eb dijeni vet\u00ebm gjat\u00eb hetimit administrativ, n\u00eb janar t\u00eb vitit 2022. Ajo ka theksuar se ky veprim nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb kryer nga ana e saj dhe se dokumentacioni p\u00ebr dy transaksionet bankare ishte i falsifikuar.<\/p>\n P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb situat\u00eb, shoq\u00ebria nd\u00ebrtuese ka shpjeguar se \u00ebsht\u00eb kryer pages\u00eb nga ana e nj\u00eb punonj\u00ebsi t\u00eb saj, p\u00ebrpara depozitimit nga pala bler\u00ebse sipas k\u00ebsteve t\u00eb parashikuara n\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn e sip\u00ebrmarrjes, si pasoj\u00eb e nj\u00eb lapsusi nga ngarkesa e madhe e pun\u00ebs. N\u00eb vijim, nj\u00eb parfaq\u00ebsuese e shoq\u00ebris\u00eb ka deklaruar n\u00eb KPK se ata jan\u00eb njoftuar nga klienti q\u00eb nuk e kishte t\u00eb mundur q\u00eb ta kryente pages\u00ebn n\u00eb muajin qershor dhe likuidimin do ta b\u00ebnte m\u00eb von\u00eb. Sipas saj, n\u00eb kushte t\u00eb tilla kishin injektuar fondet e administratorit dhe t\u00eb xhiros s\u00eb biznesit n\u00eb llogari.<\/p>\n Ajo ka shtuar se p\u00ebr efekt t\u00eb operacioneve t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb, jan\u00eb detyruar ta kryenin k\u00ebt\u00eb likuidim p\u00ebrpara se t\u00eb b\u00ebhej fizikisht nga pala bler\u00ebse. Komisioni v\u00ebren se shoq\u00ebria nuk ka paraqitur raste t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj praktike.<\/p>\n Shumica ka krijuar bindjen se \u00e7mimi i blerjes s\u00eb apartamentit \u00ebsht\u00eb likujduar kur jan\u00eb kryer transfertat bankare 48 mij\u00eb euro prej punonj\u00ebsit t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb dhe jo sipas pretendimeve t\u00eb subjektit. N\u00eb vendim theksohet se ky fakt ndikon analiz\u00ebn financiare p\u00ebrfundimtare t\u00eb kryer me q\u00ebllim v\u00ebrtetimin e blerjes s\u00eb pasuris\u00eb me t\u00eb ardhura t\u00eb ligjshme.<\/p>\n Shumica rendit provat dhe argumentet ku \u00ebsht\u00eb bazuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim. Sipas KPK, kontrata e porosis\u00eb dhe e shitjes mb\u00ebshtesin konkluzionin se likujdimi i apartamentit \u00ebsht\u00eb kryer me pages\u00ebn n\u00eb bank\u00eb t\u00eb shum\u00ebs 48 mij\u00eb euro, nga punonj\u00ebsi i shoq\u00ebris\u00eb n\u00eb qershor t\u00eb vitit 2012.<\/p>\n Konkretisht, ka rezultuar se n\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn e sip\u00ebrmarrjes t\u00eb dat\u00ebs 15 maj 2012 p\u00ebrcaktohet se \u00e7mimi i shitjes do t\u00eb likuidohej brenda muajit qershor t\u00eb vitit 2012 dhe se likuidimi do t\u00eb b\u00ebhej n\u00eb rrug\u00eb bankare n\u00eb llogari t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimore. Sipas shumic\u00ebs, edhe kontrata e shitjes e janarit 2015 v\u00ebrteton se \u00e7mimi i shitjes s\u00eb pasuris\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb likuiduar nga bler\u00ebsit n\u00eb favor t\u00eb shit\u00ebsit n\u00eb llogarin\u00eb bankare t\u00eb k\u00ebtij t\u00eb fundit.<\/p>\n KPK v\u00ebren se dy transfertat bankare t\u00eb dat\u00ebs 8 qershor 2012 n\u00eb shumat 33 mij\u00eb e 150 euro dhe 14 mij\u00eb e 850 euro me p\u00ebrshkrim veprimi \u201cEriselda Bala, derdhje n\u00eb llogari t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb \u2018***\u2019 sh.p.k. p\u00ebr k\u00ebst blerjeje apartamenti\u201d v\u00ebrtetojn\u00eb kalimin n\u00eb llogarin\u00eb bankare t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb nd\u00ebrtuese t\u00eb shum\u00ebs 48 mij\u00eb euro q\u00eb p\u00ebrkon me \u00e7mimin e shitjes s\u00eb parashikuar n\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn e sip\u00ebrmarrjes dhe at\u00eb t\u00eb shitjes, si dhe me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e likuidimit t\u00eb \u00e7mimit t\u00eb shitjes, parashikuar n\u00eb t\u00eb dyja k\u00ebto kontrata.<\/p>\n Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, vler\u00ebsohet se nuk q\u00ebndron pretendimi i subjektit p\u00ebr shlyerjen e \u00e7mimit t\u00eb shitjes me tri k\u00ebste dhe jo n\u00eb rrug\u00eb bankare. \u201c\u2026kontrata e sip\u00ebrmarrjes me dat\u00eb 12.5.2012, nuk v\u00ebrteton likuidimin e shum\u00ebs 8.000 euro n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb dat\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa shkresat e titulluara mandate-ark\u00ebtimi me data 23.7.2012 dhe 5.1.2015, paraqitur nga subjekti vet\u00ebm gjat\u00eb hetimit administrativ, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb prova shkresore q\u00eb v\u00ebrtetojn\u00eb likuidimin cash t\u00eb shum\u00ebs 40.000 euro n\u00eb k\u00ebto data dhe, p\u00ebr m\u00eb tep\u00ebr k\u00ebto akte shkresore nuk konkurrojn\u00eb me provat shkresore t\u00eb sip\u00ebrp\u00ebrmendura,\u201d konkludon shumica.<\/p>\n P\u00ebrve\u00e7 k\u00ebsaj, p\u00ebrpilimi i k\u00ebtyre shkresave vler\u00ebsohet nga Komisioni si nj\u00eb p\u00ebrpjekje e shoq\u00ebris\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb justifikuar pretendimet e subjektit. Nj\u00eb tjet\u00ebr argument \u00ebsht\u00eb mungesa e nj\u00eb kall\u00ebzimi penal ndaj shoq\u00ebris\u00eb nd\u00ebrtuese nga subjekti.<\/p>\n Komisioni ka kryer analiz\u00ebn financiare p\u00ebr kryerjen e pages\u00ebs s\u00eb \u00e7mimit t\u00eb apartamentit n\u00eb qershor t\u00eb 2012-\u00ebs, prej nga ka rezultuar balanc\u00eb negative n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 5 milion\u00eb e 674 mij\u00eb lek\u00eb. N\u00eb vendim thuhet se n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb analiz\u00eb nuk jan\u00eb marr\u00eb n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb t\u00eb ardhurat nga burimet e deklaruara nga subjekti pas dat\u00ebs 8 qershor 2012, kur jan\u00eb kryer dy transfertat bankare.<\/p>\n Shumica \u00e7mon se deklarimet e subjektit n\u00eb lidhje me burimet e krijimit t\u00eb apartamentit jan\u00eb jo vet\u00ebm t\u00eb pasakta, por edhe t\u00eb rreme. \u201cNga Komisioni \u00e7mohet se mungesa e deklarimeve n\u00eb lidhje me transaksionet bankare t\u00eb kryera m\u00eb 8.6.2012 ka qen\u00eb pik\u00ebrisht p\u00ebr shkak se subjekti nuk ka justifikuar me t\u00eb ardhura t\u00eb ligjshme shum\u00ebn 48.000 euro, paguar n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb dat\u00eb dhe p\u00ebr m\u00eb tep\u00ebr, subjekti ka qen\u00eb plot\u00ebsisht e nd\u00ebrgjegjshme q\u00eb dy transfertat nuk jan\u00eb kryer prej saj,\u201d v\u00ebrejn\u00eb Zhegu dhe Shuli.<\/p>\n Ndryshe nga shumica, Bekteshi vler\u00ebson se Bala ka qen\u00eb konseguente n\u00eb q\u00ebndrimet e saj dhe se ka deklaruar po t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn vler\u00eb p\u00ebr apartamentin n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 48 mij\u00eb euro.<\/p>\n Bekteshi v\u00ebren se subjekti ka kryer kall\u00ebzim penal p\u00ebr falsifikimin e n\u00ebnshkrimit t\u00eb saj n\u00eb pagesat e kryera n\u00eb bank\u00eb n\u00eb qershor t\u00eb vitit 2012 dhe se nuk q\u00ebndron konstatimi i shumic\u00ebs se Bala nuk ka kryer kall\u00ebzim edhe n\u00eb adres\u00eb t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb nd\u00ebrtuese.<\/p>\n \u201cNuk mund t\u00eb penalizojm\u00eb subjektin e rivler\u00ebsimit p\u00ebr veprime dhe administrim t\u00eb brendsh\u00ebm t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimore,\u201d shprehet Bekteshi dhe shton se keqinterpretohet fakti se shpesh her\u00eb kompanit\u00eb hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie huamarrjeje t\u00eb p\u00ebrkohshme me ortak\u00ebt e tyre p\u00ebr zgjidhje t\u00eb shpejta likuiditeti, por se kjo \u201cnuk mund t\u2019i vishet subjektit\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cVler\u00ebsoj se argumentet e shumic\u00ebs jan\u00eb jobind\u00ebse, nuk bazohen n\u00eb prova, por mb\u00ebshteten n\u00eb veprime duksh\u00ebm t\u00eb kryera n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb jokorrekte nga banka, jo n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me ligjin, q\u00eb cenojn\u00eb besueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e saj, por nga ana tjet\u00ebr mendoj se nuk mund dhe nuk duhet t\u00eb r\u00ebndojn\u00eb pozit\u00ebn e subjektit,\u201d thekson Bekteshi dhe shton se probleme t\u00eb s\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebs natyr\u00eb shfaqen me t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn bank\u00eb edhe n\u00eb dy raste t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb hetimit administrativ t\u00eb subjekteve t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit.<\/p>\n Bekteshi arrin n\u00eb konkluzionin se nuk ka qen\u00eb Bala q\u00eb ka depozituar shum\u00ebn 48 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb llogari t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb n\u00eb qershor t\u00eb vitit 2012. K\u00ebt\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim ajo e bazon dhe n\u00eb faktin se ashtu si ka deklaruar subjekti, ajo ka depozituar p\u00ebr llogari t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb nd\u00ebrtuese shum\u00ebn 8000 euro n\u00eb muajin maj t\u00eb vitit 2012 dhe 1000 euro n\u00eb janar t\u00eb 2015-\u00ebs. Sipas saj, k\u00ebto pagesa mb\u00ebshtesin deklarimet e subjektit p\u00ebr pages\u00ebn e k\u00ebstit 39 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb korrik t\u00eb vitit 2012 dhe e cil\u00ebson hipotetik vler\u00ebsimin e shumic\u00ebs.<\/p>\n Bekteshi shprehet se vler\u00ebsimi i saj p\u00ebrforcohet edhe me faktin se subjekti dhe shoq\u00ebria kan\u00eb mbajtur procesverbal p\u00ebr marrjen n\u00eb dor\u00ebzim t\u00eb \u00e7el\u00ebsave t\u00eb apartamentit pas pages\u00ebs s\u00eb k\u00ebstit 39 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb korrik t\u00eb vitit 2012, si dhe fillimin e faturimeve t\u00eb energjis\u00eb elektrike prej muajit shtator e n\u00eb vijim. Por, shumica ngre dyshime se procesverbali \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrpiluar p\u00ebr efekt t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, pasi nuk rezulton t\u00eb jet\u00eb p\u00ebrmendur m\u00eb par\u00eb apo t\u00eb jet\u00eb pjes\u00eb e kontrat\u00ebs s\u00eb shitjes.<\/p>\n Duke e kryer analiz\u00ebn financiare bazuar n\u00eb deklarimet e subjektit, Bekteshi konkludon se Bala ka pasur burime financiare t\u00eb ligjshme t\u00eb mjaftueshme p\u00ebr blerjen e apartamentit dhe se duhej t\u00eb ishte konfirmuar n\u00eb detyr\u00eb.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit vendosi me shumic\u00eb votash m\u00eb 7 prill 2022 t\u00eb largoj\u00eb nga detyra prokuroren e Tiran\u00ebs, Eriselda Bala p\u00ebr problemet n\u00eb kriterin pasuris\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, Bala u vler\u00ebsua pozitivisht p\u00ebr past\u00ebrtin\u00eb e figur\u00ebs dhe profesionalizmin. Shumica e p\u00ebrb\u00ebr\u00eb nga kryesuesja Suela Zhegu dhe an\u00ebtarja Firdes Shuli arrit\u00ebn n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se prokurorja Bala […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":637,"featured_media":71375,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,117,115],"tags":[118,119,122],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Eriselda-Bala-111-scaled.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Prokurorja Eriselda Bala pas seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore n\u00eb KPK. Foto: Vladimir Karaj. ","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71374"}],"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\/637"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71374"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71374\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":71376,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71374\/revisions\/71376"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/71375"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}