{"id":73524,"date":"2021-05-03T12:38:43","date_gmt":"2021-05-03T10:38:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/liro-e-shtrengo-kpa-u-nda-ne-4-qendrime-ne-vendimin-per-eugen-becin\/2021\/05\/03\/"},"modified":"2023-04-06T21:43:37","modified_gmt":"2023-04-06T19:43:37","slug":"liro-e-shtrengo-kpa-u-nda-ne-4-qendrime-ne-vendimin-per-eugen-becin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/liro-e-shtrengo-kpa-u-nda-ne-4-qendrime-ne-vendimin-per-eugen-becin\/2021\/05\/03\/","title":{"rendered":"Liro e shtr\u00ebngo: KPA u nda n\u00eb 4 q\u00ebndrime n\u00eb vendimin p\u00ebr Eugen Be\u00e7in"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Trupa e Kolegjit doli me kat\u00ebr q\u00ebndrime t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00eb lidhje me dy kritere t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, nd\u00ebrsa shumica la n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e shkarkimit vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr mosdeklarimin e revokimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb vize nga SHBA.<!--more--><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_76437\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-76437\" style=\"width: 533px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/Beci-e-sakte-.jpg\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-large wp-image-76437\" src=\"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/Beci-e-sakte--533x400.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"533\" height=\"400\" data-id=\"76437\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-76437\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Prokurori Eugen Be\u00e7i pas seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore n\u00eb Kolegjin e Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit. Foto: Vladimir Karaj.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit, ka marr\u00eb disa kthesa t\u00eb forta n\u00eb vendimin q\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimisht sanksionoi shkarkimin e ish-prokurorit Eugen Be\u00e7i. Brenda trup\u00ebs s\u00eb KPA, kryesuar nga Natasha Mulaj, Albana Shtylla relatore, si dhe Rezarta Schuetz, Ardian Hajdari dhe Sokol \u00c7omo an\u00ebtar\u00eb, p\u00ebr \u00e7\u00ebshtjen ndaj Be\u00e7it \u00a0jan\u00eb krijuar dy shumica me q\u00ebndrime t\u00eb ndryshme.<\/p>\n<p>E para ka vendosur t\u00eb rr\u00ebzoj\u00eb Komisionin e Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit sa i p\u00ebrket pasuris\u00eb s\u00eb Be\u00e7it. E dyta ka vendosur t\u00eb shkarkoj\u00eb Be\u00e7in vet\u00ebm bazuar n\u00eb mosdeklarimin n\u00eb kriterin e figur\u00ebs t\u00eb t\u00ebrheqjes s\u00eb viz\u00ebs nga Ambasada e SHBA n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>T\u00eb mbetura n\u00eb pakic\u00eb n\u00eb pjes\u00ebn e pasuris\u00eb Natasha Mulaj dhe Rezarta Schuetz arsyetuan n\u00eb q\u00ebndrim paralel se deklarimet e Be\u00e7it mbi pasurit\u00eb mbeteshin t\u00eb pasinqerta dhe se ai duhej t\u00eb ishte shkarkuar p\u00ebr deklarim t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm edhe n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb kriter, nd\u00ebrsa e cil\u00ebsuar arsyetimin e shumic\u00ebs \u201calogjiz\u00ebm\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb n\u00eb mendimin e saj si pakic\u00eb, Albana Shtylla arsyetoi se vendimi ndaj Be\u00e7it duhej t\u2019i ishte kthyer KPK-s\u00eb p\u00ebr rivler\u00ebsim t\u00eb kriterit t\u00eb profesionalizmit dhe vendimi t\u00eb merrej vet\u00ebm pas vler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb t\u00eb tre kriteret. \u00a0Shtylla arsyeton se vet\u00ebm mosdeklarimi i refuzimit t\u00eb viz\u00ebs nga SHBA, pik\u00eb q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb konsideruar shkarkuese n\u00eb disa vendime t\u00eb Kolegjit, nuk ishte i mjaftuesh\u00ebm.<\/p>\n<p>Be\u00e7i u shkarkua fillimisht nga KPK n\u00eb qershor t\u00eb vitit 2019 nga nj\u00eb trup\u00eb e kryesuar nga Valbona Sanxhaktari, me relatore Xhensila Pine dhe an\u00ebtar Roland Ilian. Ai u ankua n\u00eb Kolegjin e Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit, i cili si\u00e7 del nga vendimi \u00e7liroi Be\u00e7in nga problemet e gjetura n\u00eb kriterin e pasurois\u00eb, por vendosi 4 me 1 n\u00eb favor t\u00eb shkarkimit bazuar vet\u00ebm n\u00eb mosdeklarimin e refuzimit t\u00eb viz\u00ebs nga SHBA.<\/p>\n<p>Nj\u00eb gabim q\u00eb ka penalizuar edhe disa gjyqtar\u00eb e prokuror\u00eb t\u00eb tjer\u00eb q\u00eb u p\u00ebrfshin nga ambasada e SHBA-ve n\u00eb nj\u00eb list\u00eb personash q\u00eb u revokoheshin vizat n\u00eb 26 janar dhe q\u00eb d\u00ebshtuan ta deklaronin k\u00ebt\u00eb, kur dor\u00ebzuan dokumentet p\u00ebr figur\u00ebn pran\u00eb Drejtoris\u00eb s\u00eb Sigurimit t\u00eb Informacionit t\u00eb Klasifikuar.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q\u00ebndrimi mbi viz\u00ebn<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Si\u00e7 del nga vendimi i zbardhur i KPA, Be\u00e7i iu n\u00ebnshtrua nj\u00eb procesi rutin\u00eb deri n\u00eb momentin q\u00eb Kolegji vendosi q\u00eb ta thirr\u00eb at\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb seanc\u00eb publike. KPA nuk ka b\u00ebr\u00eb m\u00eb her\u00ebt t\u00eb tilla l\u00ebshime pa pasur shkelje proceduriale nga ana e KPK-s\u00eb q\u00eb kan\u00eb detyruar at\u00eb t\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyj\u00eb duke b\u00ebr\u00eb nga e para rivler\u00ebsimin dhe ndonj\u00ebher\u00eb edhe hetim t\u00eb ri.<\/p>\n<p>N\u00eb vendimin p\u00ebr Be\u00e7in KPA shprehet se vendosi q\u00eb kishte nevoj\u00eb t\u00eb d\u00ebgjonte n\u00eb seanc\u00eb publike \u00e7\u00ebshtjen. Debati n\u00eb seanc\u00eb u fokusua plot\u00ebsisht mbi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen e mosdeklarimit t\u00eb viz\u00ebs nga SHBA. Be\u00e7i dha aty argumente t\u00eb ngjashme nga ato t\u00eb paraqitura me shkrim dhe pretendoi se nuk kishte pasur arsye p\u00ebr mos deklarimin dhe se kishte paraqitur pasaport\u00ebn q\u00eb tregonte se viza ishte revokuar.<\/p>\n<p>N\u00eb vendim shumica e krijuar n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast nga Mulaj, \u00c7omo, Schuetz dhe Hajdari vendosi se arsyetimi i Be\u00e7it se refuzim do t\u00eb konsiderohej vet\u00ebm n\u00ebse kthehej nga kufiri n\u00eb SHBA nuk ishte bind\u00ebs. Ata argumentuan se me revokimin e viz\u00ebs ai nuk kishte mund\u00ebsi t\u00eb udh\u00ebtonte p\u00ebr n\u00eb SHBA.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cKy pretendim nuk q\u00ebndron, pasi si analizuar m\u00eb sip\u00ebr, revokimi i viz\u00ebs do t\u00eb thot\u00eb refuzim i hyrjes n\u00eb nj\u00eb shtet t\u00eb caktuar\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n<p>Kolegji shprehet se Be\u00e7i kishte pasur mund\u00ebsin\u00eb t\u00eb shprehej mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb revokim pasi ai ishte njoftuar \u201cnga Ambasada e ShBA-s\u00eb n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb p\u00ebr revokimin e viz\u00ebs trevje\u00e7are q\u00eb kishte marr\u00eb pran\u00eb saj, p\u00ebrpara dat\u00ebs s\u00eb dor\u00ebzimit t\u00eb formularit p\u00ebr kontrollin e figur\u00ebs\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Shumica arsyeton se pavar\u00ebsisht k\u00ebsaj dijenie, \u201csubjekti ka dor\u00ebzuar formularin t\u00eb plot\u00ebsuar n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb pasakt\u00eb\u201d. Kjo pasakt\u00ebsi sipas shumic\u00ebs \u00ebsht\u00eb e mjaftueshme p\u00ebr ta cil\u00ebsuar Be\u00e7in t\u00eb pap\u00ebrshtatsh\u00ebm n\u00eb kriterin e figur\u00ebs, duke e cil\u00ebsuar at\u00eb shkarkuese.<\/p>\n<p>P\u00ebrkund\u00ebr k\u00ebsaj n\u00eb pakic\u00eb, Shtylla q\u00eb ka mbajtur q\u00ebndrim m\u00eb t\u00eb zbutur ndaj Be\u00e7it arsyeton se vet\u00ebm mosdeklarimi i revokimit t\u00eb viz\u00ebs ishte i pamjaftuesh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb vendosur shkarkimin. Shtylla megjithat\u00eb nuk shprehet n\u00eb favor apo kund\u00ebr shkarkimit, ajo k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb ish-prokurori t;i n\u00ebnshtrohej rivler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb Komisionin e Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit p\u00ebr kriterin e profesionalizmit dhe vet\u00ebm m\u00eb pas t\u00eb merrej vendim p\u00ebr t\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBazuar n\u00eb sa m\u00eb sip\u00ebr, vler\u00ebsoj se p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb q\u00eb fakti i mosdeklarimit t\u00eb revokimit t\u00eb viz\u00ebs n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn e rivler\u00ebsimit p\u00ebr kriterin e figur\u00ebs, si i vet\u00ebm, nuk mund t\u00eb kualifikohet si shkak shkarkimi\u201d, shprehet Shtylla.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Problemet e pasuris\u00eb<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Mosdeklarimi i refuzimit t\u00eb viz\u00ebs nga SHBA edhe pse \u00ebsht\u00eb konsideruar shkarkues m\u00eb her\u00ebt, nuk ka qen\u00eb asnj\u00ebher\u00eb element i vet\u00ebm n\u00eb vendimmarrjet p\u00ebr shkarkim as n\u00eb KPA dhe as n\u00eb KPK. Por n\u00eb rastin e Be\u00e7it ai mbeti arsye e vetme e shkarkimit, pasi nj\u00eb shumic\u00eb e krijuar n\u00eb trup\u00eb nga relatorja Shtylla, \u00c7omo dhe Hajdari rr\u00ebzoi vendimin e KPK n\u00eb kriterin e pasuris\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>Shumica rr\u00ebzoi fillimisht dyshimet e ngritura nga KPK mbi dy kontrata p\u00ebr nj\u00eb apartament t\u00eb bler\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2006. Komisioni ishte shprehur se nj\u00eb prej kontratave ishte fiktive dhe ishte p\u00ebrdorur p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar kredit\u00eb t\u00eb but\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa destinacioni i k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb fundit nuk dokumentohej. Por shumica n\u00eb KPA nuk e gjeti k\u00ebt\u00eb si problem.<\/p>\n<p>N\u00eb arsyetim shumica shprehet se dy kontratat nj\u00ebra me pronarin e truallit dhe tjetra me kompanin\u00eb ishin p\u00ebr t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin objekt dhe se nuk shihte arsye t\u00eb fiktivitetit. Shumica po ashtu rr\u00ebzoi edhe pretendimin e KPK-s\u00eb se kredia e but\u00eb ishte p\u00ebrfituar p\u00ebrmes kontrat\u00ebs fiktive apo pretendimet mbi munges\u00ebn e provave p\u00ebr pagesat.<\/p>\n<p>Shumica shprehet se deklarimet n\u00eb deklaratat periodike ishin mjaftueshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb provuar se si u p\u00ebrdor kredia, nd\u00ebrsa argumenton se ish-prokurori nuk kishte bler\u00eb pasuri tjet\u00ebr.<\/p>\n<p>Por n\u00eb pakic\u00eb Mulaj dhe Schuetz thon\u00eb se argumentimi nuk q\u00ebndronte. Ato fokusohen kryesisht te deklarimet kontradiktore t\u00eb Be\u00e7it n\u00eb lidhje me nj\u00eb kredi mobilimi. Sipas pakic\u00ebs ish prokurori e kishte bler\u00eb sht\u00ebpin\u00eb dhe jetonte n\u00eb t\u00eb, para se t\u00eb n\u00ebnshkruante kontrat\u00ebn e dyt\u00eb dhe se kredia e mobilimit \u00ebsht\u00eb marr\u00eb para se t\u00eb merrej kredia e but\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>Ngjash\u00ebm pakica i referohet si t\u00eb drejta gjetjeve t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb se ish-prokurori nuk e kishte transferuar t\u00eb gjith\u00eb kredin\u00eb p\u00ebr sht\u00ebpin\u00eb e bler\u00eb, por e kishte t\u00ebrhequr at\u00eb pjes\u00eb-pjes\u00eb q\u00eb sipas pakic\u00ebn nuk tregonin q\u00eb ishte p\u00ebrdorur p\u00ebr sht\u00ebpin\u00eb, duke v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dyshim burimin e blerjes.<\/p>\n<p>Nj\u00ebsoj shumica rr\u00ebzon pretendimet e KPK-s\u00eb sa i p\u00ebrket shk\u00ebmbimit t\u00eb apartamentit 82 metra me nj\u00eb apartament 169.6 metra. Shumica nuk e p\u00ebrmend ndryshimet n\u00eb vler\u00eb t\u00eb apartamentit, nj\u00ebri i vler\u00ebsuar 8 milion dhe tjetri 22 milion.<\/p>\n<p>Ajo arsyeton se merreshin t\u00eb mir\u00ebqena huat\u00eb nga dy v\u00ebllez\u00ebrit, 4 milion lek\u00eb, q\u00eb ishin rr\u00ebzuar n\u00eb KPK si t\u00eb pa dokumentuara dhe pranoi si prov\u00eb kontratat p\u00ebr to duke iu referuar marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve familjare. Shumica po ashtu mori t\u00eb mir\u00ebqen\u00eb form\u00ebn e pages\u00ebs dhe kontratat e n\u00ebnshkruar mes dy pal\u00ebve q\u00eb futeshin n\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie shk\u00ebmbimi, n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn thuhej se nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb e \u00e7mimit do t\u00eb paguhej p\u00ebr 8 vjet me 400 mij\u00eb lek\u00eb n\u00eb vit.<\/p>\n<p>Sipas shumic\u00ebs deklarimet e subjektit n\u00eb deklaratat periodike n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb periudh\u00eb dhe kontratat e n\u00ebnshkruara e shpjegimet e dh\u00ebna ishin t\u00eb mjaftueshme si prova. Shumica vler\u00ebsoi si problem vet\u00ebm bilance t\u00eb vogla negative qe mbeteshin pas rr\u00ebzimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb pjese t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb KPK, q\u00eb sipas saj nuk pas sillnin shkarkim nga detyre.<\/p>\n<p>Por pakica thot\u00eb se ky arsyetim nuk ishte logjik. \u00a0\u201cKjo premis\u00eb do t\u00eb ishte nj\u00eb gabim deduksioni logjik, n\u00eb t\u00eb cilin v\u00ebrtet\u00ebsia e th\u00ebnieve do t\u00eb konstatohej e provuar, meqen\u00ebse subjekti ka treguar kujdes t\u00eb deklaroj\u00eb nj\u00eb burim t\u00eb caktuar, pavar\u00ebsisht nga mungesa e dokumentacionit shoq\u00ebrues-provues q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbush kriteret e k\u00ebrkuara nga ligji lidhur me ligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb n\u00eb form\u00eb dhe p\u00ebrmbajtje\u201d, shprehet pakica.<\/p>\n<p>Mulaj dhe Schuetz shprehen se KPA duhej t\u00eb kishte tejkaluar n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb edhe vendimin e Komisionit, i cili nuk i ishte referuar \u00e7mimit t\u00eb transaksionit. Sipas pakic\u00ebs Be\u00e7i kishte p\u00ebrfituar nj\u00eb apartament 22 milion lek\u00eb duke paguar vet\u00ebm 15.2 milion lek\u00eb, nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00eb cilave me k\u00ebste deri n\u00eb vitin 2022, dhe pala tjet\u00ebr kishte humbur n\u00eb transaksion 7.6 milion lek\u00eb. Pakica tha se marr\u00ebdh\u00ebniet miq\u00ebsore nuk ishin bind\u00ebse p\u00ebr t\u00eb provuar k\u00ebt\u00eb lloj shk\u00ebmbimi.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSubjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit nuk ishte bind\u00ebs p\u00ebr t\u00eb sqaruar arsyet p\u00ebrse ky k\u00ebmbim \u00ebsht\u00eb pranuar nga z. R. n\u00eb nj\u00eb disfavor t\u00eb qart\u00eb dhe n\u00eb mosp\u00ebrputhje me \u00e7do logjik\u00eb ekonomike\u201d, shprehet pakica. Sipas t\u00eb cil\u00ebs vendimi i komisionit duhej t\u00eb kishte q\u00ebndruar n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsin\u00eb e tij dhe se deklarimi i Be\u00e7it mbi pasurin\u00eb ishte i pamjaftuesh\u00ebm.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/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>Trupa e Kolegjit doli me kat\u00ebr q\u00ebndrime t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00eb lidhje me dy kritere t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, nd\u00ebrsa shumica la n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e shkarkimit vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr mosdeklarimin e revokimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb vize nga SHBA.<!-- 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":73525,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,481,114,362],"tags":[596,112,149,122,391],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/Beci-e-sakte-.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Prokurori Eugen Be\u00e7i pas seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore n\u00eb Kolegjin e Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit. Foto: Vladimir Karaj. ","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73524"}],"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=73524"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73524\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":73526,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73524\/revisions\/73526"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/73525"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}