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

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Ilir Beqaj: You cannot be accused of theft just because you were a minister

2026-06-20 11:07:21Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Ilir Beqaj: You cannot be accused of theft just because you were a minister
Ilir Beqaj

Former Minister of Health, Ilir Beqaj, has reacted publicly regarding the trial against him over the sterilization case.

Through a public statement published by his lawyer, Beqja emphasizes that after six years of investigations, there are no charges of passive corruption against him and that 'you cannot be accused of theft just because you were a minister'.

Full statement of former minister Ilir Beqja published by his lawyer, Ermal Yzeiraj:

In his capacity as Mr. Ilir Beqaj's lawyer and at his request, below is his public statement:

You can't be accused of theft just because you were a minister.

In the criminal process for the concession of integrated management of surgical instruments, as Minister of Health, I was initially investigated for passive corruption, violation of equality in tenders, and abuse of office.

After 6 years of investigation, there are no charges of passive corruption against me. So, it is not alleged that I requested, received, or was promised any benefit.

There are no accusations of active corruption or passive corruption for anyone else.

There is also no accusation of violation of equality in tenders for anyone. So, it is not alleged that the competition was conducted in a criminally illegal manner. Consequently, the contract is legal.

After all this, the charge against me has been changed to "theft by abuse of office."

But here the fundamental question arises: What have I stolen?

No one, in their capacity as minister, including me, is part of any of the links in the administrative chain of contract implementation.

I, in my capacity as Minister:

I did not accept the service;

I have not verified the service's implementation;

I have not received an invoice;

I have not ordered payment;

I have not executed any payments;

I was not a direct administrator of the FSDKSH budget;

I was not a custodian of state money;

I am not accused of having received any sum of money from the Ministry's finance office;

I am not accused of taking items from the minister's office and sending them home.

Payments were made by FSDKSH to the concessionaire based on contracts, invoices, service receipts and through the State Treasury.

If the billing was regular, then we have a contractual payment, not theft.

There are no criminal charges against the concession company. There are no criminal charges against the administrator of the concession company. There are no criminal charges against the person who issued the invoices. There are no criminal charges against the person(s) who received the service.

How can I be the perpetrator of the theft, when I did not touch any link in the billing, receipt of service, ordering, or execution of payment?

A regular contractual payment, made by invoice and through the Treasury, cannot be taken and called "theft" just because I signed the contract as a minister.

Criminal liability is personal.

You are not punished for public perception.

You are not punished for the position you held.

You are not punished for the title "minister".

You are only punished if your specific criminal action or inaction is proven.

In this case, my specific act of theft does not exist.

There is no proof that I received money.

There is no proof that I benefited.

There is no proof that I ordered the payments.

There is no proof that I received services.

There is no proof that I received the invoices.

There is no evidence that I participated in any false billing.

So what's left?

All that remains is an attempt to turn a minister's political or administrative responsibility into a charge of theft.

This is not criminal justice.

In a state governed by the rule of law, the charge of theft requires the diminution or appropriation of another's property without the valid consent of the owner. It requires a specific act. It requires intent. It requires specific value. It requires unjust gain.

None of this is proven against me.

Therefore, the charge of "theft by abuse of office" is unfounded.

I request that I not be accused of theft without the amount stolen being disclosed.

I ask not to be punished for an act I did not commit.

I ask that evidence not be replaced with perception.

I ask that the law not be replaced with prejudice.

Tomorrow I will communicate with you why the charge of theft under the Albanian Criminal Code does not meet the principles of legality.

Ilir Beqaj


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×