Ylli Manjani: SPAK cannot launch a property investigation without first discovering the criminal offense. Starting proceedings with anonymous names is the horror of horrors

By Ylli Manjani

I want to say that these observations belong to the public, to its interest, and not to the crowd.

1. I rarely agree with Fatmir Xhafaj. There is a real gap between us in the way we conceive of rights, the law and the justice system. But yesterday he announced a simple truth: "you cannot go from a property investigation to a criminal offense, but vice versa."

Totally agree.

I couldn't agree more.

He should have said this in the case of Ben Ahmetaj as well, but no.

That's how it should be, but in reality it just isn't. The reason why it doesn't work the way Fatmir already says is the speculative anti-mafia law. According to that law, the property investigation begins with clues, completely unrelated. That law, as Fatmir himself wrote it, is abusive.

So the solution is to intervene in that law to establish normality. For me, that law should even be in the body of the Criminal Procedure, but that's another topic. First, Fatmir should write this position into the law.

2. The property investigations we have seen so far are based on expert reports. It is the experts who evaluate prices, purchases, financial transactions, and the value of assets. Prosecutors and judges are fools in these matters, regardless of their individual knowledge.

In the Veliaj case, I didn't see any expert references, just prosecutors' guesses.

Property investigations absolutely require technical and professional expert assessments. If they are lacking, speculation is dangerous.

3. Criminal justice in particular has habeas corpus as its fundamental pillar. So the fact, the event, the product, the consequence. In addition to a quantity of money found in the safe, I don't know if dresses, panties, jewelry were seized?!

So far it is said that there are purchase invoices, but where is the purchased product?!

I understand the crowd's debate about prices and expensive products, but as far as I understand, the justice system has not seized any such product.

4. A group of businessmen are under investigation for this case, alleging that they sponsored (as a means of suspected corruption, of course) artistic events.

I don't know if there is any legal prohibition on providing sponsorships. It is enough that they were made with a bank in exchange for a legal-civil act. If there is no violation of the law, why should they be investigated and put under scrutiny?!

What about the simple answer that I gave him that I would like sponsorship, but why did I have to respond directly with criminal proceedings?!

I'm not going to go into the reasoning that "the spoils of corruption" are not bank sponsorships. That's where we come out to the crowd.

But I insist, the business and citizen who pays the price of corruption is not the corrupt, but the swindler. The corrupt is the statesman.

There can be no criminal offense for actions that are based on the law. Ignorance is the cause that leads to a criminal offense.

5. I don't understand SPAK's insistence that it doesn't appreciate the prosecutor's deanthology in the case. The bottom line is this: he asked for a favor from the Tirana municipality, which he didn't receive, and for that, he should be allowed to take revenge?!

What kind of system is this, justice or revenge?!

6. Starting the proceedings with anonymity is then the horror of horrors.

This should be fucking banned. The state should have a minimum of manpower to confront the person directly, and not put anonymity in the middle.

These are my observations, beyond the crowd but always in the service of the public. Of course, I don't know if the other elements of this case hold true or not, because I am not a lawyer, but these findings are concerning to me for the public interest.

Anyone who knows me should remember that I have made such observations in the context of previous cases. Even then, they were not for the crowd, but for the public.

Who will have eyes and ears to understand that these are concerns for all of us, not for the next "good for the dog"?

Finally, any friend on this page who appears to me with the minds of the crowd will be separated from my company.