E fundit!

17:40 DENOUNCEMENT

Irfan the fraudster does not pay journalists' salaries

Irfan Hysenbelliu claims to be a big businessman, an hones...

The actions that brought about the dismissal of Sokol Malaj

2023-11-17 21:05:00, Aktualitet CNA

The actions that brought about the dismissal of Sokol Malaj

The prosecutor, Sokol Malaj (right) and his lawyer Julian Mërtiri

Prosecutor of Tirana Sokol Malaj was dismissed by the Independent Qualification Commission, after the KPK body that investigated the case reasoned that he had violated public trust in justice. In the disclosed decision, the Commission clarifies that Malaj was dismissed mainly due to maintaining an active relationship with the company under his control.

The group chaired by Pamela Qirko, with member Roland Ilia and rapporteur Brunilda Bektesh also noted that Malaj had incorrectly declared the financial relationship with his brother. The prosecutor was also found with some problems regarding the cases he had followed. According to the Commission, these issues alone were not exculpatory, but weighed in the entirety of the case, it was assessed that "in relation to the other findings, they should be assessed and treated as situations that affect the violation of public trust".

Property valuation

In the disclosed decision, the Independent Qualification Commission points out a series of problems found during the investigation of the assets of the Malay prosecutor. However, in the justification of the dismissal decision, two of the problems have been singled out as dismissals by the Commission.

The first concerns a financial relationship between Malaj and his brother. According to the investigation, Malaj had been given a loan of 10 million lek by his brother and claimed, among other things, that through this loan he had bought an apartment.

But the KPK found Malay's and his brother's statements and transactions about the apartment contradictory and inaccurate.

According to a notarial statement issued by the brother, the amount in question was returned in January 2016, but in the declaration of assets in 2016, Malaj had declared the repayment of the loan in October 2016. The KPK also reasoned that the alleged clearing relationship was unclear, since in the contract stated that the payment for the apartment was made by the prosecutor.

Malaj contested these findings by bringing as evidence the clearing relationship between the brother and the construction company and the benefit of an apartment from his sister in a similar manner. But the Commission called it not overturning the burden of proof and insisted that, unlike his sister, prosecutor Malay had paid the value of the apartment directly to the construction company.

KPK also claimed that the subject's brother had no income in the period in question to repay the loan of 10 million ALL. The Commission reasoned that Malaj had a lack of legal financial resources in the amount of 10.2 million ALL, for the years 2011, 2012 and 2016.

Meanwhile, regarding the subject's participation in commercial activity and holding active shares in his company, KPK reasoned that this was done in violation of legal prohibitions for magistrates.

"The judicial body appreciates that the subject's actions have produced substantial inconsistencies with the function of the prosecutor and the obligations related to ethics. The behavior of the subject against legal obligations is considered by the court as facts of the case that are sufficient to reach the conclusion that the subject of the revaluation cannot enjoy the public's trust to remain in office", it is stated in the reasoning of the KPK regarding this point.

Malaj contested this decision, describing his actions in relation to the company as sporadic and limited. He claims that he did not violate the law by owning the shares. The prosecutor is quoted in the decision as having defended himself by describing the position of the KPK as "a very narrow and not harmonious interpretation of the applicable legislation in force".

But the Commission describes his relationship with the company as an exhibitionist. "So, the exposure of the revaluation subject to such a relationship with the commercial company has made it a subject that can be influenced in the exercise of its duty independently, due to its need to guarantee material benefits from this activity", says the reasoned decision.

On professionalism

The Malay prosecutor was not found to have image problems despite a negative report from the DSIK. As it appears in the decision, the findings in this report were rejected by the Commission.

But as far as professionalism is concerned, the KPK found a number of violations, mainly from cases for which complaints had been made to the prosecutor.

The KPK reasons that on the whole Malay "reaches the qualifying level in the assessment of professional skills", but the violations found after the denunciation of the three citizens had "obvious flaws".

The Commission points out that in this case there was, among other things, a lack of investigations and non-respect of the decision-making of the courts.

The body points out that the subject of the revaluation has acted in some cases contrary to articles 73 and 74 of the law no. 96/2016, has violated acts approved by the General Prosecutor and repeatedly his decisions not to start or terminate the proceedings have been overturned by the court which has found in these cases a lack of investigative actions.

The KPK says that in some of these cases "the subject did not implement the tasks left by the court in their investigation, which is why, after the request made by him to dismiss the case, the court decided to return the documents and continue the investigations". .

However, the Commission reasons that in themselves these problems were not exculpatory, but in the overall evaluation, the KPK qualified them as an additional argument in the violation of the public's trust in justice. "These shortcomings in themselves are not enough to call the subject unsuitable according to Article 44, letter "c", but they are valued in such a way that they constitute a sufficient basis for the evaluation of the case as a whole", the decision states./ BIRN