Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit, KPA e ka gjetur t\u00eb drejt\u00eb vendimin e Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, KPK p\u00ebr shkarkimin nga detyra t\u00eb Prokurorit t\u00eb Shkodr\u00ebs, Arben Sma\u00e7i m\u00eb 21 korrik 2021 dhe konkludon se ai ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb. Pretendimet e ngritura n\u00eb shkaqet p\u00ebr aspektin procedural jan\u00eb gjetur t\u00eb pabazuara nga KPA, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb konfirmuar deklarimi i rrem\u00eb i rezultuar gjat\u00eb hetimit administrativ n\u00eb shkall\u00ebn e par\u00eb p\u00ebr \u00e7mimin e nj\u00eb apartamenti, si dhe pamund\u00ebsia financiare p\u00ebr krijimin e k\u00ebsaj pasurie.<\/p>\n
N\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn veting, Sma\u00e7i ka pasqyruar nj\u00eb kontrat\u00eb premtim shitje p\u00ebr blerje apartamenti me sip\u00ebrfaqe 123.3 m2 n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb p\u00ebr shum\u00ebn 50 mij\u00eb euro. Nga hetimi ka rezultuar se, apartamentin p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilin subjekti ka deklaruar se e ka bler\u00eb p\u00ebr 50 mij\u00eb euro, pala shit\u00ebse e kishte prenotuar n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn dit\u00eb kundrejt \u00e7mimit 90 mij\u00eb euro, vler\u00eb q\u00eb i \u00ebsht\u00eb paguar shoq\u00ebris\u00eb nd\u00ebrtuese.<\/p>\n
Lidhur me k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri, Komisioni ka arritur n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se Sma\u00e7i nuk arriti t\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtoj\u00eb barr\u00ebn e prov\u00ebs sa i takon \u00e7mimit t\u00eb blerjes dhe ka krijuar bindjen se ka paguar vler\u00ebn 90 mij\u00eb euro, aq sa shit\u00ebsi e kishte prenotuar pasurin\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn dat\u00eb q\u00eb ka lidhur kontrat\u00ebn p\u00ebr premtimin e shitjes me subjektin dhe po aq sa jan\u00eb shitur 11 apartamente t\u00eb tjera n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin pallat.<\/p>\n
Sipas KPK, subjekti ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb pasakt\u00eb dhe t\u00eb rrem\u00eb t\u00eb \u00e7mimit t\u00eb blerjes s\u00eb k\u00ebtij apartamenti n\u00eb vitin 2015 dhe n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn \u201cveting\u201d, si dhe nuk ka justifikuar me t\u00eb ardhura t\u00eb ligjshme shum\u00ebn 50 mij\u00eb euro p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb nj\u00eb balance negative prej 4 milion\u00eb lek\u00ebsh dhe t\u00eb pamund\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 6.5 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb shlyer diferenc\u00ebn prej 40 mij\u00eb eurosh.<\/p>\n
Pretendimet e subjektit se shit\u00ebsi kishte p\u00ebrfituar disa apartamente pasi ishte pronar i nj\u00eb pjese t\u00eb truallit ku ishte nd\u00ebrtuar kompleksi, se banesa gjendej n\u00eb nj\u00eb pozocion t\u00eb pafavorsh\u00ebm dhe ishte e vetmja dhe i fundit n\u00eb llojin e vet\u00eb, nuk jan\u00eb gjetur bind\u00ebse prej Komisionit.<\/p>\n
N\u00eb ankim subjekti ka pretenduar se Komisioni nuk ka administruar asnj\u00eb akt shkresor q\u00eb t\u00eb v\u00ebrtetoj\u00eb se ai ka paguar ndonj\u00eb shum\u00eb n\u00eb favor t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb, duke k\u00ebmb\u00ebngulur se t\u00eb gjitha k\u00ebto pagesa jan\u00eb realizuar nga pala shit\u00ebse, t\u00eb cil\u00ebs i ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb vet\u00ebm shum\u00ebn prej 50 mij\u00eb eurosh. Ai ka theksuar se nuk ka ekzistuar asnj\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie mes tij dhe shoq\u00ebris\u00eb nd\u00ebrtueese.<\/p>\n
Po ashtu, Sma\u00e7i ka pretenduar se ka depozituar n\u00eb Komision mandatpagesa p\u00ebr depozitimet n\u00eb cash, transfertat e brendshme, si dhe kopje t\u00eb dokumenteve t\u00eb identifikimit q\u00eb jan\u00eb p\u00ebrdorur p\u00ebr t\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb k\u00ebto veprime bankare me q\u00ebllim blerjen e apartamentit, por q\u00eb nuk jan\u00eb marr\u00eb n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb n\u00eb hetimin adminsitrativ n\u00eb shkall\u00ebn e par\u00eb t\u00eb vetingut t\u00eb magjistrat\u00ebve.<\/p>\n
Kolegji konstaton se kontratat e n\u00ebnshkruara mes pal\u00ebs shit\u00ebse dhe shoq\u00ebris\u00eb nd\u00ebrtuese, si dhe ajo e shitblerjes me subjektin jan\u00eb hartuar n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn dit\u00eb, para t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtit noter dhe nj\u00ebra pas tjetr\u00ebs \u2013 fakt ky q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb konstatuar n\u00eb numrin rendor t\u00eb radh\u00ebs s\u00eb regjistruar n\u00eb regjistrin noterial.<\/p>\n
\u201cKolegji v\u00ebren se ekziston nj\u00eb diferenc\u00eb e madhe dhe e konsiderueshme e vler\u00ebs s\u00eb \u00e7mimit t\u00eb blerjes s\u00eb k\u00ebsaj pasurie n\u00eb raport me \u00e7mimin e shitjes s\u00eb saj (pagesa e bler\u00ebsit t\u00eb par\u00eb, z. Xh. B., \u00ebsht\u00eb 90.000 euro, nd\u00ebrsa vlera e paguar nga subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit si bler\u00ebs i dyt\u00eb, te po ky shtetas, \u00ebsht\u00eb 50.000 euro). Nga shqyrtimi i dosjes s\u00eb Komisionit, nuk rezultoi q\u00eb subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb ket\u00eb paraqitur dokumentacion (marr\u00ebveshje, kontrat\u00eb) q\u00eb t\u00eb v\u00ebrtetonte pretendimin p\u00ebr konvertimin e dividentit n\u00eb pasuri t\u00eb paluajtshme nga shoq\u00ebria \u201c{***}\u201d ShPK, te z. Xh. B.\u201d, citohet n\u00eb vendimin e KPA.<\/p>\n
Sipas Kolegjit, pretendimet e subjektit b\u00ebhen akoma m\u00eb t\u00eb pabesueshme n\u00eb kushtet kur nga shitja e k\u00ebtij apartamenti, duket se shit\u00ebsi Xh. B., jo vet\u00ebm nuk ka realizuar fitim, por ai ka p\u00ebsuar nj\u00eb humbje n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 40 mij\u00eb euro. \u201c[\u2026]N\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb pashpjegueshme ia ka paguar at\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb n\u00eb vijim, megjith\u00ebse nuk e kishte p\u00ebrfituar nga shitja dhe as n\u00eb ndonj\u00eb form\u00eb tjet\u00ebr si divident, n\u00eb koh\u00ebn kur pretendon subjekti\u201d, shprehet Kolegji.<\/p>\n
N\u00eb vendimin e KPA konstatohet se nj\u00eb fakt tjet\u00ebr q\u00eb tregon vler\u00ebn reale t\u00eb \u00e7mimit t\u00eb blerjes s\u00eb apartamentit, pasqyrohet n\u00eb kartel\u00ebn e apartamentit t\u00eb regjistruar n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb subjektit dhe bashk\u00ebshortes s\u00eb tij, ku sh\u00ebnohet se vlera e pasuris\u00eb s\u00eb shitur \u00ebsht\u00eb 90 mij\u00eb euro. Ky fakt, sipas Kolegjit, e thellon pabesueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb n\u00eb deklarimet e subjektit se \u00e7mimi i shitjes s\u00eb k\u00ebtij apartamenti ka qen\u00eb vet\u00ebm n\u00eb vler\u00ebn prej 50 mij\u00eb eurosh.<\/p>\n
N\u00eb vijim, Kolegji v\u00ebren se subjekti ka paguar n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet sistemit bankar shum\u00ebn prej 84 mij\u00eb e 690 eurosh p\u00ebr apartamentin. \u201cKy fakt potencon s\u00ebrish bindjen e Kolegjit se \u00e7mimi i blerjes s\u00eb k\u00ebtij apartamenti ka qen\u00eb n\u00eb vler\u00ebn prej 90.000 eurosh. Pretendimi i subjektit se dokumentacioni bankar nuk provon q\u00eb pagesat jan\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb prej tij, por vet\u00ebm p\u00ebrshkruan se p\u00ebr llogari t\u00eb cilit apartament kan\u00eb shkuar ato, konsiderohet prej Kolegjit se mbetet i paprovuar dhe nj\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb e leximit t\u00eb k\u00ebtij dokumentacioni bankar n\u00eb abstragim t\u00eb rrethanave t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb dala nga hetimi\u201d, citohet n\u00eb vendimin e arsyetuar.<\/p>\n
Dy mandatpagesa t\u00eb paraqitura nga Sma\u00e7i n\u00eb seanc\u00ebn d\u00ebgjimore, p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilat ai deklaroi at\u00ebher\u00eb se jan\u00eb depozituar n\u00eb bank\u00eb nga shtetasi Xh. B. dhe k\u00ebrkoi q\u00eb t\u00eb konsidrohen si pages\u00eb e atij shtetasi, Kolegji i vler\u00ebson si rrethan\u00eb t\u00eb izoluar dhe si fakte t\u00eb pamjaftueshme, pasi nuk ka dor\u00ebzuar mandatpagesat p\u00ebr 11 veprimet e tjera bankare t\u00eb kryera p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri, q\u00eb do t\u00eb kishin lejuar kryerjen e nj\u00eb analize t\u00eb detajuar t\u00eb dokumentacionit bankar.<\/p>\n
Sma\u00e7i i ka b\u00ebr\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00eb bank\u00ebs p\u00ebr gjith\u00eb kopjet e mandatpagesave dhe t\u00eb dokumenteve t\u00eb idenfikimit t\u00eb perosnave q\u00eb kan\u00eb kryer pagesat p\u00ebr apartamentin, por nuk ka dor\u00ebzuar n\u00eb Komision ndonj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje. Kolegji v\u00ebren se kjo k\u00ebrkes\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb d\u00ebrguar me vones\u00eb nga subjekti dhe vler\u00ebson se ai ka pasur gjith\u00eb koh\u00ebn e mjaftueshme p\u00ebr gjetjen e dokumentacionit justifkues ligjor p\u00ebr provueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e pagesave t\u00eb kryera.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong>N\u00eb k\u00ebto kushte, KPA vler\u00ebson se subjekti nuk gjendet n\u00eb kushtet e pamund\u00ebsis\u00eb objektive p\u00ebr t\u00eb provuar pretendimet e tij.<\/p>\n P\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, \u00ebsht\u00eb gjetur i drejt\u00eb q\u00ebndrimi i KPK se \u00e7mimi i paguar nga subjekti p\u00ebr apartamentin \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 90 mij\u00eb euro dhe se ai ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast.<\/p>\n Sma\u00e7i ka rezultuar edhe n\u00eb KPA n\u00eb pamund\u00ebsi p\u00ebr t\u00eb bler\u00eb apartamentin p\u00ebr \u00e7mimin 90 mij\u00eb euro. Po ashtu, nga kontrolloi i analiz\u00ebs financiare t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithshme t\u00eb kryer n\u00eb Komision, \u00ebsht\u00eb konfirmuar balanca negative n\u00eb vler\u00ebn prej 7.3 milion\u00eb lek\u00ebsh, q\u00eb n\u00eb pjes\u00ebn m\u00eb t\u00eb madhe i p\u00ebrket pamund\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr blerjen e apartamentit.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit, KPA e ka gjetur t\u00eb drejt\u00eb vendimin e Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, KPK p\u00ebr shkarkimin nga detyra t\u00eb Prokurorit t\u00eb Shkodr\u00ebs, Arben Sma\u00e7i m\u00eb 21 korrik 2021 dhe konkludon se ai ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb. Pretendimet e ngritura n\u00eb shkaqet p\u00ebr aspektin procedural jan\u00eb gjetur t\u00eb […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":637,"featured_media":77808,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,114],"tags":[525,112,119,146],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/A550071E-03E1-400A-9B7B-A053AA83EC9B.jpeg","fifu_image_alt":"Arben Sma\u00e7i d\u00ebshtoi t\u00eb rr\u00ebzonte n\u00eb KPA deklarimin e rrem\u00eb p\u00ebr \u00e7mimin e nj\u00eb apartamenti","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77807"}],"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=77807"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77807\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":77809,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77807\/revisions\/77809"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/77808"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}