DREAM / The Prime Minister resigns and wakes up under the Parisian bridge!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Lawyer Skënderaj: The prosecution has filed charges against the Elbasan incinerator, which do not exist in legal literature

2023-05-24 16:36:56Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Lawyer Skënderaj: The prosecution has filed charges against the Elbasan
Klodjan Skenderaj

The lawyer of the defendants for the Incinerator of Elbasan, Klodjan Skënderaj, has emphasized that the Prosecutor's Office has not delved into the investigations, but has only stopped at the reports of the political subjects and the signed documents.

Invited to the show Zona Zero on Top News, Skënderaj stated that the term "actual owner" used for the accused Mirel Mërtiri does not exist in legal literature and further added that there is no concrete evidence for it.

He also mentioned the three main points that will be defended in the June 1 session, as he said that they will ask for the dismissal of the case, as a case with the same evidence that has been investigated before is being investigated and there is a final decision.

"We are in the last phase came with final conclusions. The measures required for the punishments are high, however, the claim and the conclusions of the Prosecutor are the same that we have encountered other times as a notice of completion of investigations, etc.

I don't see any deepening of the investigations. It was a report of a political entity and then the Prosecutor's Office received several documents. I do not see anything new in the prosecutor's conclusions. The prosecutor's office claims that the criminal offense of abuse of office was consumed here, and then it was transferred to the commercial case, where punishment is required for active corruption and for the laundering of criminal proceeds.

The financing came from a loan and from the state budget, we cannot talk about cleaning criminal products here. Punishment is also required of other persons who have no connection or responsibility, such as the term actual owner, which does not exist at all in the literature. It is a strained interpretation to charge specific individuals with criminal offences. To say that defendant X is the beneficial owner of having 1. 2. 3 emails is an interpretation that does not make sense. So to accuse someone of having committed murder because the Prosecutor's Office knows that there was a conflict with the victim, but having no evidence or concrete data, this does not make sense.

Second, who will be held responsible, the actual owner or the de jure owner? So they say that you are the de facto owner and you must bear responsibility. But if the one who accuses you does not prove anything then how will you be held criminally responsible. There is a presumption on the part of the Prosecution and not a concrete fact.

We are convinced that in the present case the facts are the same. The charges had to be proven, so far they have not been done.

The other problem with us is that the security measure is set without questioning the accused person. It does not make sense to immediately run to the extreme measure of imprisonment.

Our claims will be in several dimensions. First, we are dealing with a case that has been tried and given a final decision, and it makes no sense to give you another decision. On the other hand, there are also problems of prescription, since even if it is taken for granted that corruption has been committed, then when was this criminal offense committed? When was the concession granted or when were the invoices cut? Thirdly, does he have anything concrete or a concrete person to have transferred money? So a person should be punished only if it is assumed that he is the de facto owner. So these will be our claims in the next session.

We teach them the fact that in this particular case there is no criminal offense and the case should be dismissed. The abbreviated trial is not an admission of guilt," stated lawyer Klodian Skenderaj.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×