COMMENT from I NJATI / Do you want to solve a problem? Don't look for the solution, but eliminate the problem!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Citizen wins lawsuit against "Raiffeisen", bank extorted money from ex-husband's loan with fake letters

2025-06-29 09:01:23Fokus SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Raiffeisen Bank

Albanian citizen FV (identity published only with initials out of respect for personal data) spectacularly won the trial with Raiffeisen Bank Albania after a long ordeal at all levels of the Albanian judiciary.

With a final and conclusive decision, the courts have ruled in favor of the citizen, "condemning" Raiffeisen Bank with the obligation to return to the citizen 100,000 lek that was unjustly obtained from her and caused in the form of damage.

What exactly happened?

On 11.02.2009, a bank loan contract was concluded between the Company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA in the capacity of lender, Mr. F. B., a natural person, in the capacity of borrower, and Ms. FB, in the capacity of co-borrower, through which the lender agreed to grant the borrowers the amount of 550,000 lek (bank loan contract dated 11.02.2009).

The violations begin from this moment, as the citizen who sued the bank was accepted as a co-borrower in a loan requested by her ex-husband even though she had divorced him by court order.

Specifically, with decision no. 871, dated 07.04.2008 (one year before the loan), the Vlora Judicial District Court decided to dissolve their marriage, a decision that has become final.

But Raiffeisen Bank is not satisfied with that. Even in this case of the citizen who won the lawsuit after several years of wandering through the courts, this bank transferred the loan given to the citizen to one of those infamous bad debt management companies.

Specifically, on 27.06.2013, a contract for the transfer of the aforementioned loan was concluded between the company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA, in the capacity of the loan transferor, and the company "Tranzit" SHPK, in the capacity of the loan recipient (loan transfer contract no. 12343 prot, dated 28.06.2013)

In this contract, the company “Raiffeisen Bank” SHA, in the capacity of loan transferor, has transferred a portfolio to the company “Tranzit” SHPK. One of the loans that were transferred to the new creditor with the above contract dated 26.07.2013 was the loan of the debtor FB

The company "Tranzit" SHPK has immediately initiated procedures for the execution of the loan taken from the ex-husband of the citizen who won the lawsuit with the bank.

Citizen FB, and co-borrower F (V) B were notified by the company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA about the transfer of the loan to the company "Tranzit" SHPK through letter no. 110 prot, dated 05.07.2013 "Notice of the transfer of the loan to another Creditor (Transit shpk)".

Citizen wins lawsuit against "Raiffeisen", bank extorted money from

Subsequently, with letter no. 6322 prot, dated 21.04.2016 with the subject “Notice of voluntary execution”, the plaintiff was informed of the issuance of the execution order no. 11832, dated 18.12.2012, for the executive title of the bank loan contract dated 11.02.2009, simultaneously notifying her of the voluntary execution of the obligation.

As soon as she was made aware of the notification in question, the citizen realized the forgery committed with her signature, as she had not signed the application for the loan received from her ex-husband, and Raiffeisen Bank had included her name in this matter.

Under these conditions, the plaintiff, claiming that the executive title, bank loan contract dated 11.02.2009, was not signed by her, addressed the court with a lawsuit requesting: "The invalidity of the executive title, bank loan contract dated 11.02.2009, for the part where the plaintiff is included as a co-borrower and consequently the cancellation of the enforcement action of the seizure imposed on my salary.

The citizen partially won the case in the Vlora court, while the loan taken from her ex-husband at Raiffeisen Bank had already begun to haunt her and cause damage to her life.

The company “Tranzit” SHPK, after receiving the loan file from Raiffeisen Bank, has put in motion the bailiff company “AA Bailiff” SHPK for the execution of the executive title, by withholding from the plaintiff F. V the salary that the latter received from the company “…. Bank” SHA, for several months, in the total amount of 82,726 lekë, this proven by the letter of the company “…. Bank” SHA regarding the bank account movements of the plaintiff FV.

From this documentary evidence, it is proven that the amount transferred from the plaintiff's account to the account of the enforcement company "AA Bailiff" SHPK is 82, 726 (eighty-two thousand seven hundred and twenty-six) lek.

So for the 550,000 lek loan received from her ex-husband at Raiffeisen Bank, without her knowledge and without her signature, the citizen had 82,726 lek withheld from her income at another bank where her salary was transferred. As if this were not enough, “Raiffeisen Bank” JSC “throws the stone and hides its hand” by claiming before the courts that from the moment the loan was transferred to the company “Tranzit” SHPK, it has ceased to be a creditor and has not undertaken any enforcement action to execute the obligation against zFB, or against the plaintiff Ms. FV herself.

The above, i.e. the fact that the citizen had no knowledge and had not requested a loan from Raiffeisen, was also proven by the court's findings that:


After being made aware of this entire procedure, the plaintiff, having no knowledge of this contract concluded on the premises of the defendant, the company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA, and consequently, not agreeing with it, addressed the Vlora Judicial District Court with the lawsuit subject matter: "Invalidity of the executive title, bank loan contract dated 11.02.2009, for the part where the plaintiff is included as a co-borrower".

In the lawsuit, the citizen requested the Court to issue an order to force the defendant Raiffeisen Bank to return the amount of 82,726 lek that was withheld from the plaintiff's account for the execution of the executive title "Bank loan contract dated 11.02.2009", a contract which for the part of the plaintiff F. V. was declared invalid, as well as with compensation for non-pecuniary damage (moral damage) to the plaintiff.

In addition to the series of violations and irregularities mentioned above, Raiffeisen Bank's position in court is interesting. While it itself had transferred the file to the company "Tranzit" SHPK and the citizen was withheld money for the loan taken from her ex-husband at Raiffeisen Bank, the latter emphasized in court that "The company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA has at no time sent this executive title for execution and as a result has not received any income/collection of obligations.!!!!"

Despite this "foxish" stance in court, the bank itself has admitted that the citizen's involvement in the loan taken out by her ex-husband was done irregularly, but in this case, the bank that has been pursuing the citizen for years had good faith towards her ex-husband!!!

The court's decision expressly states that: It is true that the company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA has carried out a financing of the borrower, zFB and has had a contract in the capacity of co-borrower plaintiff Mrs. F. V, but as we have proven in the aforementioned judgment, as part of the documentation for the loan application zF B has submitted a personal certificate with a photograph of Mrs. FV (B) dated 20.01.2009 issued by the Civil Registry of the Municipality of Orikum and it is precisely on this identification document that the bank has carried out the actions. So the Bank, in conditions of complete trust on the official document presented, has also carried out the identification of the co-borrower and at no time was it aware that the borrower zFB had submitted a forged personal certificate.!!!!

It also results from the evidence presented by the plaintiff, the enforcement procedure for debtors FB and F. V (B) began on 20.04.2016 and the amounts withheld in the amount of 82,726 lek were withheld from the plaintiff's salary account, in order to repay the obligation.

After the Vlora court, with decision no. 1076, dated 25.06.2019, decided to "Reject the lawsuit of plaintiff FV, she sent the case to the Court of Appeal.

In the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff FV claimed that she had dissolved her marriage with her ex-husband FB in the Vlora Court of First Instance in 2008, this decision having become final in 2009. During the trial, it was proven that the defendant company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA had entered into a bank loan contract with citizen F. B, who had submitted forged documents in the name of Flutura Blushaj, making the latter a co-borrower.

The company “Raiffeisen Bank” SHA claims that it is not “responsible” that the borrower F. B presented forged documents to it, in the name of FV (B), making the latter a co-borrower in the bank loan contract dated 11.02.2009. The bank claims that it is not responsible either for the notifications it sent to the plaintiff F. Vi, 4 years after she had dissolved the marriage and had moved out of the borrower FB’s apartment to the latter’s address. In these conditions, the question arises, whose fault is it? The plaintiff’s who had no knowledge at all about the bank loan contract? - the decision states.

On the appeal filed by the injured citizen, the Vlora Court of Appeal, with decision no. 112, dated 01.04.2021, has decided: "The annulment of judicial decision no. 1076, dated 25.06.2019 of the Vlora Judicial District Court and the sending of the acts for retrial before that court, but with a different trial panel.".

But while this Appeal decision begins to provide justice for the citizen, Raiffeisen Bank does not agree and opposes the decision in question. Specifically, the documents show that against this decision, on 17.05.2021, the defendant, the company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA, has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. In its decision, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (hereinafter the Chamber) assesses that the appeal filed by the defendant, the company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA, does not contain any of the cases provided for in the law, therefore, as such, it should not be accepted.

Citizen wins lawsuit against "Raiffeisen", bank extorted money from

This decision deals the final blow to the stance of Raiffeisen Bank, which not only involved the citizen in taking out a loan from her ex-husband without her knowledge and on a forged document, but also sold the loan in question to another company that holds the money from the citizen's other bank, where her salary was transferred, for something she has no knowledge of.

In addition to the cunning stance maintained in court throughout the process, "throwing the hidden stone with the hand", Raiffeisen Bank thus receives a legal blow as the court establishes that the recourse filed by it against the citizen has no legal basis and is not accepted.

But valuable for explaining the case is the submission in a part of the file, which clearly argues the opposition to the "cunning" of Raiffeisen Bank, which sold the loan to the company "Final" SHA and all the time later claimed that it had nothing to do with the case.

"Referring to the evidence received in the trial on the basis of the request of the applicant company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA in the capacity of creditor, the Tirana District Court has issued the execution order for the Bank Loan Contract dated 11.02.2009, a request that has been accepted by the Tirana Court. Has the defendant company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA collected obligations? Referring to the evidence received in the trial, the defendant company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA, based on the contract for the sale of the loan dated 27.06.2013, has sold this loan to the creditor company "Tranzit" SHPK for a price, therefore it results that the defendant company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA has sold the loan to the new creditor company "Tranzit" SHPK by collecting the "loan" that was owed to the plaintiff FV. In these conditions, the plaintiff could not request the amount of lek that was unjustly withheld from her from the new creditor company "Tranzit" SHPK, but the defendant company "Raiffeisen Bank" SHA would rightly demand it," the court decision states.

The episode presented in this article is unfortunately not the only one. The company FINAL JSC, to which Raiffeisen Bank transferred the citizen's loan, is part of the major micro-loan scandal, a file still under investigation by SPAK.

Raiffeisen Bank and the Micro Loans scandal

On the other hand, the company to which Raiffeisen Bank sold the loan of the injured citizen, on 23.05.2024, lost its license by decision of the Bank of Albania, precisely for the micro-loan scandal which is still not receiving the proper response from the justice authorities.

At that time, the Bank of Albania announced that on 23.5.2024, it had taken a decision to revoke the licenses of two non-bank financial entities, namely license no. 11, dated 20.2.2009 of the company "Final" sh.pk and license no. 38 dated 9.5.2016 of the company "Micro Credit Albania" sh.pk, now suspended by decision no. 644, dated 6.2.2024.

Citizen wins lawsuit against "Raiffeisen", bank extorted money from

The decision-making of the Bank of Albania is based on the legal and regulatory provisions in force that regulate the activity of non-bank financial entities, which provide, among other things, for cases of license revocation when licensed entities no longer continue to meet the conditions under which they were licensed.

In the above-mentioned cases, for the partners of both companies whose licenses were revoked, at the request of the Prosecutor's Office, the Court of First Instance, Tirana, imposed an arrest measure, and we are in a situation where they no longer meet the criterion of high ethical reputation, which, among other things, considers that the individual is not under criminal prosecution, on trial for criminal offenses, and has been criminally convicted.

Also, the Bank of Albania is addressing the legal and regulatory framework regarding the ongoing management of the client portfolio of the companies "Final" and "Micro Credit Albania".

The Bank of Albania will issue a second announcement to provide full clarifications to all interested clients on how the loan portfolios of these two entities will be treated going forward.

The case of the citizen from Vlora who finally won the trial with Raiffeisen Bank despite a legal ordeal lasting several years also refutes the false claim of the defendant bank in this case that it had no connection to the micro-loan scandal. This scandal was created precisely with the mechanism followed in this case where banks sold to non-bank companies, the loan portfolios that they had given to citizens "to wash their hands of it", despite the fact that this later brought years of persecution for the citizens and the appropriation by them of amounts several times larger than the loans they had received./ Lajmifundit.al

Galeria fotografike (
)

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×