KPK assesses that judge Avni Sejdi made an insufficient declaration of wealth

2024-03-22 19:17:00, Aktualitet CNA

Judge Avni Sejdi of the Administrative Court of the First Instance of Tirana was dismissed by the Independent Qualification Commission, KPK on January 19, 2024, after it was concluded that he had made an insufficient declaration of wealth. The commission also found a violation of the magistrate's ethics indicator, but the majority of the KPK body consisting of the chairman Roland Ilia and the member Suela Zhegu, considered it as an isolated case and insufficient for dismissal. Although the rapporteur Genta Tafa Bungo joined the majority for the dismissal of Sejd for problems in the professional criteria, she appreciates that the findings found during the administrative investigation in the criteria of wealth and professionalism, lead to the assessment that the subject has violated public trust in justice.

Avni Sejdi started his career in the justice system as an assistant judge in 1996 and in 2000 he was appointed as a judge in the Court of Mirdita. In 2007, he was transferred to the Court of Puka and from 2013 until his dismissal, he served in the Administrative Court of First Instance of Tirana.

Property problems

As sources for the purchase of an apartment with an area of ??118 m2 in 2004, against the price of 4 million and 720 thousand ALL, the subject has declared the income from his salary; bank loan in the amount of 400 thousand ALL, received in 2005 and in 2007 in the amount of 800 thousand ALL; loan of 1 million ALL in 2005, received by the citizen BZ; gifts from immigrant brothers in Italy in the total value of 27 thousand euros; as well as income from the sale of a vehicle in 2007, for the price of 400 thousand ALL.

From the financial analysis carried out in the KPK, it was found that the entity did not have the financial opportunity to create a cash balance of 300 thousand ALL in 2004, resulting in a lack of resources in the amount of 1 million 198 thousand ALL.

KPK did not find any problems in the loans received, but it was found impossible for the partial repayment of the loan received in 2007. Even for the loan received in the amount of 1 million ALL in 2005, it turned out that the lender had sufficient income , but the entity was unable to repay this obligation.

Regarding the statement that his brothers gave him a total value of 14 thousand euros in 2005, the subject changed his attitude when the KPK asked him for information and documentation to prove if his brothers were in Albania at the time of the gifts, as long as these amounts are given in cash.

In the standard questionnaire, he stated that he received the sums from his brothers who were present in Albania for the end of the year holidays. But the KPK's verifications showed that only one of the brothers was present. In response to questions, Sejdi stated that both brothers, or one of them, may have been in Albania during this period.

Consequently, it is established that the subject has changed the declaration in order to achieve a result in his favor.

For the donation of an amount from one of the brothers, the subject deposited his account, from which it appears that the brother transferred the amount of 8986 euros in March 2007.

The investigation showed that the subject himself deposited the amount of 4,000 euros in February 2007 and transferred it to his brother on the same day. Sejdi claimed that this amount was given to him by his brother's father-in-law and filed a notarial statement of the latter to confirm this version, where he explains that he sent this amount to his son-in-law for the purchase of various materials for a car service. Likewise, the father-in-law explains to his brother that he sent this amount through the subject's account number, according to his son-in-law's suggestions.

This statement was not considered by the KPK, with the argument that it was made during the administrative investigation and that it aims to create a favorable situation for the subject. In fact, the KPK estimates that the notarial declaration of Sejd's brother's father-in-law contains false information.

"On the other hand, the citizen S. K did not have to transfer this amount through the subject of the revaluation, which is the subject of the declaration, as he could have transferred it through his bank accounts or those of his family members", argues the Commission and adds that the declarant it does not turn out to have been registered for the exercise of the commercial activity for which he explains that he needed the materials.

Also, it turned out that in February 2007, the subject deposited other sums in his brother's account, for which the KPK finds that they seem to have the source of the loan received in 2007 by Judge Sejdi.

In conclusion, regarding the amount transferred to the subject's account of 8986 euros, according to the KPK, it seems that it is not a gift from the subject's brothers, but the source is the subject's own income.

"The transfer of the amount of 7,035 euros to the subject's brothers and the return of this amount afterwards was carried out in order to justify the subject's income for the year 2007, given that he does not have sufficient legal income to cover his expenses" , finds KPK and adds that Sejdi has made contradictory statements regarding the destination of this amount.

From the financial analysis carried out for the possibility of the brothers to grant loans, it was found that only one of them had the opportunity to donate the amount of 3500 euros in 2008.

Regarding the subject's claims that the analysis of his brothers had to be done jointly since they lived together, the Commission finds that this request was presented for the first time after passing the burden of proof, when it was established that they had a lack of resources.

"Besides this fact, it turns out that the IS citizen is married and that the subject in all his declarations has specifically declared the respective amounts for each brother, claimed by him as donated", adds KPK.

In the following, the Commission finds that the donations were declared only in those periods of time when the subject did not have sufficient legal income for the purchase of assets and therefore appear to be fictitious, in order to justify them with legal sources.

KPK adds that the entity has not made available the required documentation for all income and transactions carried out by the brothers, making it impossible to carry out a complete financial analysis for the possibility of donations.

The Commission assesses that the subject has not been cooperative, avoiding the deposit of the complete banking documentation of his brothers, in order to achieve a positive result in his favor.

KPK did not include the donations from the brothers in the financial analysis of the apartment, while it considered the income from the sale of a vehicle in 2007, in the amount of 400 thousand ALL.

From the general financial analysis for the apartment, financial impossibility has resulted in the amount of 1.5 million ALL. KPK also finds that Sejdi made an incorrect, incomplete and insufficient declaration for this asset.

The relator of the case, Genta Tafa Bungo, in the parallel opinion, agrees with the decision-making of the majority on the property. But she estimates that for the apartment the fact that the subject, even after passing the burden of proof, tried to present the time of payment for the apartment incorrectly; the time and manner of benefiting from donations from his brothers; as well as refused to present their and his bank account statements for a foreign relationship.

Bungo has a different assessment of the income from the sale of the vehicle in 2007. According to her, the subject has not dispelled the suspicions of a fictitious value of the sale and purchase price of this vehicle, in order to justify the expenses incurred.

In the following, the Commission finds that the subject has tried to hide the use of a vehicle without carrying out the necessary legal procedures, by not correctly stating in the "veting" declaration the time and manner of purchasing this vehicle. These actions of the subject are considered to be inconsistent with the ethics and proper behavior of a judge. In the meantime, it turned out that Sejdi did not have the opportunity to purchase this vehicle in 2012 for the price of 300,000 Lek, as it resulted in a negative balance in the amount of 120,000 Lek.

Sejdi was unable to grant a loan of 5,000 euros in 2008. Also, it is found that he was contradictory and unclear in his statements, as he claims that he did not give a loan, but in the meantime he signed a fictitious loan contract, meanwhile that the parties intended to sell a vehicle and not to grant a loan. These actions are considered to be inconsistent with the magistrate's ethics.

The Commission has not considered the income claimed by the subject to have benefited from the cultivation of agricultural crops, as they have not been documented nor declared periodically or in the "veting" statement.

From the general financial analysis of the Commission, it concludes that Judge Avni Sejdi has a negative balance in the total value of 3.6 million ALL.

At the end of the reassessment of this criterion, the KPK concludes that the subject made an insufficient declaration, a situation that was found to be sufficient for his dismissal from office.

Different opinions about breach of trust

Regarding professionalism, the KPK finds in some cases deficiencies in the aspect of legal reasoning and the aspect of legal knowledge, which are considered to indicate a lack of professional skills of the subject. But these violations have not been found sufficient for penalization.

Although the Commission has found a violation of the magistrate's ethics indicator by the subject, considering it as an isolated case, it considers it insufficient to consider it as an autonomous reason for dismissal.

Bungo notes that the Commission has found in more than one case a violation of the magistrate's ethics by the subject. It lists the problems found - incorrect statements about the time of payment of the price of the apartment, the benefit of donations, as well as the relationship of a foreigner; suspicions of fictitious value of the sale and purchase price of a vehicle; violation of the magistrate's ethics for fictitious actions and extrajudicial behavior; a case of conflict of interest; repeated deficiencies in legal knowledge and violation of the rights of the parties in the trial.

According to Bungo, these circumstances would constitute a sufficient basis of data on which it could be concluded that the subject has violated public trust in the justice system, making this conclusion autonomously applicable for the subject's dismissal from office./ Reporter .co.uk