OATH OF JUSTICE

"Battle" for the million-dollar property in Veternik

The battle for the property in Veternik, so far the Basic Law and the Appeal have taken 8 decisions

The legal "battle" for the million-dollar property in Veternik is continuing. While the constructions are continuing, the case related to the order for temporary sequestration has gone to both the first degree and the second degree. The main protagonist who is suspected of having acquired the property with forged documents is still on the run, while the other suspect as his accomplice has been arrested and sent under house arrest.

The property of about 3 hectares, about which the "Oath of Justice" reported on September 13, 2021, and held a debate on the "Tempus" show, is suspected to have been taken from Nexhat and Gursel Sadik through "fraud" and forged documents. At the time the team investigated this case, this building was on its foundations, while now this building has a total of 9 floors.

The Basic Court in Pristina, namely the judge of the preliminary procedure, Edita Çanta, on December 18, 2022, would issue the order for temporary seizure.

"It is very interesting because the first ordinance when it was issued on 18.11. 2022, it was not executed as it happens in all ordinances immediately after the issuance because the complaint does not stop the execution, however, it was executed on 25.11.2022. and that after the pressure that we, as injured parties, have exerted in the Court, where we have asked why, clarification from the judge of the preliminary procedure, also from the prosecutor of the case as to why the order issued by the judge of the preliminary procedure was not executed on the ground ”, said Saranda Keqekolla-Sadiku, lawyer of Nexhat and Gursel Sadiku.

Placing the ribbons on this property would be the first legal "battle", which the Sadiku parties would consider to have won. But this lasted very little. For more than a year, the Foundation of Appeal would take 8 decisions, but none of them decided in a meritorious way on the proposal for the sequestration of the property and the ban on construction until the final resolution of the case.

The legal battle for a sequestration order, which in the legal sense is a temporary measure, has been prolonged, and according to the parties, it happened because of the contradictory decisions of the Basic Court.

"The Basic Court in Pristina, specifically Mrs. Edita Çanta, issued the order for temporary seizure dated 18.11.2022. And he issued this order on the basis of the evidence provided by the Prosecutor's Office and mainly the expertises, which were two graphological ones by a licensed judicial expert and which concluded that the document by which Mrs. Zoë Hyseni was declared the owner, it was a falsified document in terms of the signature of the responsible person who is considered or assumed to have signed, but also the seal used in this decision was falsified", said Florim Shefqet, also the lawyer of the Sadiku parties.

But, apart from the expertise done by the Sadiku family, the prosecution did not ask until 2023 to see if the documents were forged.

"I don't know what kind of expertise it is, but I consider that the prosecutor should order an institutional expertise, which is official within the Forensics Institute, so that he can then clarify many issues about whether we are dealing with or we are not dealing with a criminal offense, which then facilitates the work of the court to approve the request to pronounce this measure", said Fjezullah Hasani, university professor and former President of the Supreme Court.

According to him, if it is said that the property derives from a forged document, then the prosecution would not have to take any steps in the direction of submitting a request for a temporary measure, only on the basis of an expertise, which the injured parties have brought and that has not been ordered by the relevant institutions.

The prosecution has requested the expertise of the "Resenje Broj" document until August 29, 2023, almost a year after the start of the investigations for Ylber Hysen, as the documents were found in Afrim Gashi after his arrest.

Until this time, since the seizure order, 8 decisions had been made.

The Kosovo Agency for Forensics, in a written response, announced that the document was examined in September 2023 and was sent to the prosecution.

But this examination, sent through the Kosovo Police, was sent to the prosecutor's office on February 6, 2024, i.e. after 4 months.

The Kosovo Police says that the expert's report was communicated orally to the prosecutor of the case, while the written report was submitted after some time together with the report on the implementation of the authorization in relation to the investigative actions carried out.

"Oath of Justice" has managed to provide the Forensics examination report, which has compared several samples, but has not managed to clarify any circumstances.

"The signatures of the column "Secretary", in the two documents entitled "Resenje" with the same number 461/61 dated "7.viii.1961", one is printed with the Black toner laser printing technique and the other with Color toner laser . The signatures in question have been examined but cannot be compared with the writings in evidence EX#2 because the signatures in EX#1 are in characters while the writings in EX#2 contain letters.

Given these circumstances, the report states that they have not reached any final result and the result is inconclusive.


It was said that they were in the Archives, it is not yet known if the original documents of the property in Veternik exist

About three hectares of land in Veternik, it is suspected that through the legalization of false content and fraud, it was taken from the parties Nexhat and Gursel Sadiku, passing in the name of the now deceased Zoja Hyseni and then the property passed to her son Ylber Hyseni, which is also being investigated.

As for the original documents, which in the judgments were said to exist in the relevant archives of the Municipality of Pristina, in November 2023, the Prosecutor's Office made a request to find these documents in the inter-municipal archive of Pristina, but they have not been found.

"From the evidence and physical materials that this archive possesses for storage by the FUND: Secretariat for Finance-Prishtina (expropriation), this documentation and these data requested by you are not stored in the Sub-municipal Archive in Pristina)", it was said in the answer of the Archive for the Prosecution.
On February 8, 2024, the Prosecutor's Office addressed the same request to the State Archives Agency of Kosovo.

Until now, the documents requested by the Prosecutor's Office on behalf of Ms. Hysen have not been found.
The "Oath of Justice" team has also researched in the Kosovo Archive, in the expropriation books, but has not been able to find documents of Ms. Hysen.

However, it remains for the archives officials to investigate further and come up with a conclusion whether or not such documents exist and whether a request was ever made by Ms. Hyseni for the receipt and notarization of these documents.

On the other hand, on November 29, 2022, the third party, in this case lawyer Venhar Hana, who represented the "Lirimi & ACL" construction company, filed a complaint against the restraining order. According to the complaint of the third party, initially the Prosecutor's Office and the court mistakenly referred to the criminal offense of "illegal occupation of real property", since the owners of this property are legitimate and possess final court decisions, with ownership certificates and construction permits. .

The representative of the construction company, in the complaint, had mentioned all the decisions where Zoja Hysen was recognized as the right of ownership and on the other hand, the lawsuit of the Sadiku parties was rejected. Therefore, according to the complaint, the issuance of the seizure order would cause damage to the company as it would not be able to fulfill its contractual obligations.

The reviewing panel, with Albina Shabani Rama, President of the panel and members Mentor Bajraktari and Sabit Sadikaj, had decided to cancel the order for the temporary seizure, returning the case to reinstatement.

The court panel had reasoned that the seizure of the property described in the order for seizure is included in an essential violation of the provisions of criminal procedures since the order as such is unclear and unenforceable, because it is not understood to whom and for what offense the seizure of the property was made as a criminal offense and on what basis.

According to the College, from the documents of the case, it can be seen that the Basic Prosecutor's Office has started investigations against Ylber Hysenaj in terms of the criminal offense of "legalizing false content" and the criminal offense of "fraud", while the plot appears in the name of several persons but not on behalf of the suspect Ylber Hysenaj. And that they were never given the order for the sequestration of the property to have the opportunity to present their objections.

"This college, in a wrong way, concluded that the suspect Ylber Hyseni did not have any property in this plot of property. That this does not hold, because from the other decisions that we have to disclose, you can see that even currently part of the union of plots is a property, which is in the name of Ylber Hysen, now the most accused and wanted according to our information with and international arrest", said Florim Shefqeti, lawyer of the Sadiku parties.


The parties consider the Foundation's reasons for refusing to seize the property to be paradoxical

The legal "battle" for the million-dollar property in Veternik regarding the order for temporary seizure has gone to both the first degree and the second degree. This property is suspected to have been taken from the parties Nexhat and Gursel Sadiku through the legalization of false content and fraud, passing in the name of the now deceased Zoja Hyseni and then the property passed to her son Ylber Hyseni, who is on the run.

Judge of the preliminary procedure, Edita Çanta, after returning the case for the first time to reset, has rejected the request for the sequestration of the plot in Veternik.

According to the reasoning, even after the completed request of the Prosecutor's Office, sufficient evidence was not provided that the immovable property for which the request for seizure was submitted can serve as evidence in the criminal procedure.

According to the representative of the parties Nexhat and Gursel Sadiku, lawyer Florim Shefqeti, the paradox is that the same judge had issued an arrest warrant for Ylber Hysen for these same claims.
"The same judge issued an arrest warrant for the defendant in this case. at the time when the seizure order was issued, I said after this return to reinstatement, although the arrest warrant issued against the defendant is in effect, the prosecution's request for a seizure order is rejected", he said.

Journalist: So you are saying that we have an anomaly between what the judge did...

"Absolutely that we probably, not that we haven't tried it in practice because of the length of time in the profession. But we have not heard of it happening before. It may have happened, but we have not heard anything other than that the same judge who remands the defendant sets the order and after returning to reinstatement rejects this order. Then, for us, it comes out in the sense that the first time when it was set there was less evidence, while the second time there was more evidence", he added.

After the rejection of the request for sequestration, the Prosecutor's Office and the lawyers of the injured party appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The second instance had returned the case to reinstatement, finding that the first instance had mistakenly applied the legal provisions, as there is material evidence such as the "Resenje Broj" document, which is suspected to be forged and there is room for the suspicion of criminal offenses claimed by the prosecution.

Among other things, it is said that the Court of first instance did not justify the fact that the parcels which were presented for temporary seizure, had a change of subjects as owners and that the decision is contradictory.

The appeal had requested that the first instance avoid violations.

Even after returning to resettlement, judge Edita Çanta, rejects the request for the temporary sequestration of the property, on the same basis.

According to the court, the properties appear in the name of third parties and not in the name of the defendant Ylber Hysenaj, therefore it considers that the legal conditions for seizing the plots have not been met.
"In order to seize an item, asset, these items or assets must be described as evidence of a criminal offense, there must be a reasonable suspicion that the same was obtained through a criminal offense, it is a means of committing the offense criminal offense, and it is suspected that it is a financial gain obtained through the commission of a criminal offense, which can serve as evidence for the commission of a criminal offense", said the court's decision

For the second time, the case would be attacked in Appeal.

In the decision of April 14, 2023, the Court of Appeal once again found a violation of the first degree. Initially, it is said that the judge referred to the new Code of Criminal Procedure, while she took actions with the old Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the present case, according to the Appeal, the provisions in force should be applied.

In an official written response from the Basic Prosecutor's Office in Pristina, it is stated that the prosecutor of the case, Nebahate Salihut, acted according to the recommendations of the Appeal and issued a temporary restraining order.

The pre-trial judge, from the prosecutor's office, requested the completion and correction of the request for a final order, requesting that within three days, evidence be sent to the court that it has been submitted to all parties who have an interest in this property, the request for a final restraining order .

The Basic Prosecutor's Office in Pristina says that on June 1, 2023, it notified the court that the parties were notified by mail, attaching a copy of the Prosecutor's Office register.

The prosecution says it has notified the defendant, the complaining party and the lawyer Venhar Hana as the representative of the legal entity "Lirimi&ACL" shpk and representative of all the co-owners of the plot in question.
The Basic Court for the third time rejects the request for a final restraining order. The decision taken on June 19, 2023, this time by judge Adnan Kamberi, assesses that the prosecutor did not specify in detail and accurately in whose name these properties are recorded, who is the owner or who has a legal interest in these properties /immovability.

"We have also said in the complaint, how does the court know who the interested persons are and we have not received an answer", said lawyer Shefqeti.

University professor Fejzullah Hasani, also the former president of the Supreme Court, says that the court should be careful when issuing the final order, as this order has consequences for the parties involved.

"Since large damages are caused to people, perhaps even without a basis, one must be very attentive, careful, when the court applies these measures, there must be a high reliability of the evidence that the property was indeed profited from a criminal offense. It should not happen, nor should it be practiced that with an assumption or a guess, the court approves this measure, because I told you it can cause big problems, it can cause investment problems, the state can then take over the risk of paying obligations due to the checkers that it causes to the parties in the procedure", he said.

For the request for temporary sequestration, the Basic Court in Pristina will decide for the fifth time.


Arsenal of weapons and hundreds of files were found on the arrested Afrim Gashi

The property of about 3 hectares in Veternik, allegedly through the legalization of false content and fraud, was taken from the parties Nexhat and Gursel Sadiku, passing in the name of the now deceased Zoja Hyseni and then the property passed to her son Ylber Hyseni, who is the main suspect in this case and is on the run.

Meanwhile, on August 25, 2023, the police arrested Afrim Gashi, suspected of being the main collaborator of Ylber Hysen for dealing with this property.

The police found Gashi: four air rifles, a pistol, two gas pistols, 1 magazine and over 50 cartridges.

About 450 files with various documents related to properties such as; Judgments, title deeds, authorizations, copies of plans, maps, lawsuits, payment slips and other documents also in Serbian language.

In addition to these, suspect Gashi was found with close to 6 euros in cash and other currencies. On August 29, the Prosecutor's Office requested the seizure of all of these, including phones and laptops.
A day after the arrest, the Prosecutor's Office requested the measure of detention. The Basic Court in Pristina had rejected the request of the Prosecution for the assignment of the measure of detention, assigning only the measure of house arrest.

Afrim Gashi is suspected of having committed the criminal offense of "Deception" and "Legalization of false content" in collaboration with Hysen.

Gashi and the suspect Hyseni are said to have parceled out and then started selling and alienating the plots.

The prosecution reasoned that by leaving the suspect at liberty, there is a risk of escape, the risk of changing the evidence or influencing the injured or witnesses. Moreover, it is said that according to the database of the Kosovo Police, the suspect Gashi is a recidivist as he has also committed the criminal offenses of fraud and legalization of false content in the past.

Gashi's defense, the Kosovare Kelmendi lawyer, opposed the request on the grounds that the request and the decision to expand the investigation are contradictory.

The judge of the preliminary procedure, Naime Krasniqi-Jashanica, had assessed that the assignment of the alternative measure, in this case house arrest, is sufficient to ensure the presence of the defendant in the criminal procedure and does not pose a risk for the repetition of the suspected criminal offenses .
According to the Prosecution's investigation, Gashi has sold 22 plots, from which he has benefited over 5 million euros, of which there is evidence that 340 have gone to Ylber Hysen's account.

"Looking at the bank transfers that Afrim Gashi has made, where based on the request for the appointment of detention, it can be seen that since 2020, he has made bank transactions of around 5 million euros and only 340 thousand euros has been transferred to the suspect another Ylber Hyseni. All others are not known to have gone. And this is exactly what has made it even more reasonable that for 5 million euros in banking transactions, for a property worth a million, the suspect, let's say the main suspect for plot 1743, should be placed under house arrest, this means not it does not even meet the minimum measure provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure", said Saranda Keqekolla-Sadiku, lawyer of Nexhat and Gursel Sadiku
One day after the house arrest for Afrim Gashi, on August 28, 2023, the Court of Appeals, for the third time, returned the case to restore the property seizure issue.

The appeal again assesses that the decision of the first instance is contradictory to the reasoning of the decision and there is a violation of the legal provisions of the KPPRK.

According to the Appeal, the request of the prosecution was rejected for formal reasons and did not decide on the credibility of the request and as such is unstable.

The Board of Appeals assesses that the decision of the Foundation has not been justified at all in relation to the legal basis on which the decision was taken.

The second level recommends to the first level to evaluate the efforts of the prosecution to send the request to all parties, evaluate the request of the prosecution regarding the possible temporary measure and then make a decision based on the relevant provisions of the KPPRK.

On October 30, 2023, the Court of First Instance rejects for the fourth time the request for sequestration of the property.

The reasoning of the court does not differ much from the other three reasonings.

According to the court, the property specified in the request does not meet the legal conditions for issuing the final restraining order.

"The other condition is that the state prosecution has not described the necessity of the restraining order and the reasonable suspicion that the property is specified property, because according to the evidence found in the case documents, these properties are owned by third parties and not in the name of to the suspects Ylber Hyseni", says one point of the reasoning.

In addition, according to the court, the prosecution failed to convince the court that the property for which the restraining order is being sought is a form or other derivative of the criminal offense. As again, the court emphasizes that the prosecution has not specified precisely who are the owners of the plots.

"To get the answer, you can see it yourself in the request, in the decision of the court itself, where the court itself mentions who the owners are. How did the court know who the owners are if it did not receive them at the request of the Prosecution? "Absolutely, that finding of the court for each property does not hold", said the lawyer of the Sadiku parties, Florim Shefqeti.

"The prosecutor's office has information that it obtained from the Cadastre office of the municipality of Pristina and they were accurate as provided by the Municipality, which I believe has the most accurate information because all the changes have been made in the Cadastre", he says in the other side, Keqekolla-Sadiku.

The prosecution itself in the answer given to the "Oath of Justice" says that the court's decision is unstable and unreasonable.

The judge of the case has refused to answer regarding the decisions on this property, saying that the case is in preliminary procedure and that it is currently in Appeal.

Even the representative of the third parties, the lawyer Venhar Hana, who according to the decision for the construction permit has also become a co-owner of this property, did not respond to the invitation for an interview.


Hasani calls the fact that the suspect is under house arrest and there is no order for the final confiscation of the property a paradox.

Keeping Afrim Gashi under house arrest and not issuing the final confiscation order, according to Professor Fejzullah Hasani, contains a paradox in itself.

"It is more or less contradictory, in the sense that even in the measures for securing the defendant, there must also be a reasonable suspicion that he has committed a criminal offense. Even for my conviction, it is vague nonsense to say here that there is no reasonable suspicion that he has committed the criminal offense, while there to say that there is no reasonable suspicion that one and the other cannot be pronounced without the existence of reasonable suspicion. In any case, it is paradoxical, I believe that we are dealing with two different judges", he said.

Afrim Gashi, was arrested on suspicion of fraud and legalization of false content, in the case where the late Mrs. Hyesni had won in court about 9 hectares of land in Veternik, among them also about 3 hectares for which Nexhat and Gursel Sadiku claim who are the owner. The main suspect in this case is Ylber Hyseni, the son of Zoja Hyseni, and he is on the run.

Although it is about the same case, the case of Afrim Gashi has received a different number in the Court, and not the number that Ylber Hysen's case has, even though both are suspected of fraud for the property in Veternik.

On October 13, 2023, the prosecutor of the case made a request to the judge of the Preliminary Procedure, Edita Çanta, for the merger of the cases. Judge Çanta informed the prosecutor that the prosecution is competent to join the proceedings until the indictment is filed, referring to Article 34, point 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This case continues to be divided, while the request for joining the proceedings has not been addressed to the President of the Court.

On the other hand, the issue of sequestration for the fourth time goes to Appeal.

The Court of Appeal, on December 18, 2023, for the fourth time returned the case to reinstatement. The appeal once again found that the decision of the Foundation is unstable and contradictory, and that the first instance did not decide on the reliability of the request but rejected it for formal reasons. The decision is said not to have been justified at all in relation to the legal basis, as it speaks of not correctly specifying the persons who have an interest in this property. According to the Appeal, from the documents of the case there is a well-founded suspicion that the suspect has committed the criminal offences. Also, it says that the third parties did not know and could not know that this property could be a derivative of the criminal offense.

"The walk, the walk, I don't understand why all this removal, arrival or destruction can happen in the temporary measure, back because here in the Court of Appeal I can see it in the first decision, in the first appeal I can see whether there is a the legal criterion that is required or the legal requirement that there is a reliability in the evidence that this property can be benefited by criminal necessity is fulfilled and he has the right, has the mandate of the Court of Appeal, has the right in the Court of Appeal that o to change or confirm the measure or to change or remove the temporary measure if no reliable evidence has been provided by the prosecutor that the property may have been a criminal benefit. So, returning or playing table tennis, returning for a temporary measure several times to the Basic Court really is for me, it is incomprehensible why", said Hasani.

He said that this also creates mistrust among the parties and the opinion, that one court has no right.

"If it continues like this only for a temporary measure, that means there is no end in sight", he said.
In relation to the frequent return to reinstatement in this case, the Court of Appeal in a written response has emphasized that the judicial panels when dealing with security measures, in the specific case regarding the final sequestration order, decide depending on the case and the evidence that the situation in the course papers.

According to the Appeal, the trial panel decides according to their free conviction on the factual situation, adding that not every return to reinstatement harms the parties, since the violations committed must be avoided.

"Otherwise, we inform you that based on the official data that we have, it results that the Court of Appeal, within the period of 2023, has returned only 12.47% of cases to retrial", says the answer.


Who is Afrim Gashi who is suspected of fraud and forgery with the property in Veternik

While the Basic Court rejects the request for the sequestration of the property on the grounds that there is no reasonable doubt that it is a derivative of the criminal offense, Afrim Gashi continues to remain under house arrest, precisely with the reasonable suspicion that they acquired it with a criminal offense in complicity this property.

But who is Afrim Gashi and why did he have authorization for all sales and purchases of this property?

According to the data provided by the Basic Court in Prishtina, Afrim Gashi, together with three other people, has an active indictment since 2008.

Gashi is accused of complicity in misleading the Municipal Court in Pristina by falsifying a receipt stating that they received 300 thousand euros from the injured AS and an authorization which they verified in Nis. They used this falsified documentation in one case. court exactly for a property. For this, Gashi and three others are being accused of having committed the criminal offense of "legalizing untrue content" in complicity.

Gashi, in the indictment, is repeatedly accused of "legalizing the false content", as he had misled the municipal court by presenting a certificate and copy of the false plan.

According to the Court's answer, the case is still in the proceedings and that the hearing is scheduled to be held in April 2024. In addition, the Prosecution in the request for detention, had stated that according to the data from the Police, Gashi has four criminal offenses of fraud, 3 criminal offenses forgery of documents and other criminal offences.

"Afrim Gashi is a person who is said to have connections with many people who have influence in the justice system, whether in the prosecutor's office or the police. According to the investigations carried out in the state prosecutor's office, Afrim Gashi's relationship with Ylber Hyseni means that it started on the basis of investigations from the moment when Ylber Hyseni was announced as the legal heir of plot 1743, the legal heir of his mother, Zoja Hyseni. where the witnesses were Afrim Gashi and his wife, Melihate Gashi", said the lawyer of the Sadiku parties, Saranda Keqekolla-Sadiku.

"Oath for Justice" also tried to interview Gashi's lawyer, Kosovare Kelmendi, but in a written answer she said that by agreement with the same, she revoked the authorization to be his defender from now on.

However, the court says that they have not yet accepted the revocation of the authorization.

The authorization for Afrim Gashi from Ylber Hyseni would start when the case for proof of ownership was still in Court. Hyseni had acquired the property in the first instance on September 14, 2015, while the decision became final on August 22, 2019.

The "Oath of Justice" has secured a pre-contract signed on August 24, 2015 at the notary Valdete Ademi between Afrim Gashi as authorized and SM as buyer.

What leaves a question mark in this pre-contract is the fact that it is stated that "The owner Ms. Hyseni, who is represented by her son Ylber Hyseni, who is represented on the basis of authorization by Afrim Gashi. This pre-contract does not indicate whether Ylber Hyseni himself had authorization from his mother to take actions regarding this property, as the law recognizes authorization and not representation.

According to the Law on Obligations, Article 72 provides for representation by power of attorney. Whereas in article 74 it is stated that "the representative cannot transfer his authorizations to another, unless this is allowed by law or by contract.

For this, the "Oath of Justice" has requested an interview with the notary Valdete Ademi, but she has refused to answer.

Furthermore, according to the data provided, it appears that this same notary had also notarized the document "Resenje Broj", which the parties claim is forged, and other documents in this case.

For this reason, the lawyers suspect a family relationship between the suspects and the notary.

"Based on research done on the Internet, it appears that the notary Valdete Ademi has close friendships with Melihate Gashi, Afrim Gashi's wife. And the question arises, now the doubt arises that it still remains to be investigated that Ylber Hyseni really possessed the original document when he notarized it or was this done because of the company?", said lawyer Saranda Keqekolla-Sadiku.

In relation to this, "Betimi per Drejtesi" has tried to contact the wife of Afrim Gashi, but until the publication of this show, he did not receive a reply.

Meanwhile, the team secured the statement of notary Ademi given to the Police, where she said that she declares with full responsibility that she was presented with the original decision as she does not certify documents without having the original document. Whereas, he said that he does not know Ylber Hysen or Afrim Gashi.

The Sadiku parties filed criminal charges against the notary Valdete Ademi for abuse of official position.


Over 5 million bank transactions, the parties question why only 350 thousand euros passed to the rightful owner

Given that Ylber Hyseni is considered the legal owner of the property in Veternik, the lawyer Saranda Keqekolla-Sadiku casts doubt on the fact that why out of all that circulation of money, only 350 thousand euros went to his account?

"According to a logic, because the authorization implies that the work is carried out in the name and account of someone else, it means according to the analysis and in an orderly manner, all the money should go in the name of Ylber Hysen because the legitimate owner is now being calculated to be Ylber Enter it. How is it the legitimate owner? It's a procedure in the investigation since it was done," she said.

This property has already become several owners. "Oath of Justice" has managed to secure the testimonies given to the Police by some of the buyers of this property.

One of the buyers, SH.K, testified that it is the second time they bought this property. The first time they say they bought it from the Sadiku family back in 2000.

"No, no one has come forward to prevent us or anything similar regarding our property, we have always paid tax and at the end of 2020 in the municipality we saw that the property appeared in the name of Ylber Hysen, which we then became interested in. and we got in touch with him, we met, we talked and we found out that inside the wall of the yard, which had about 17.5 gold, we keep only 9.02 gold for ourselves, while Ylberi took the rest and the payment for these 9.02 gold was 21 ..900 euros where we have the contract at the notary", says the statement given to the Police.

"Oath for Justice" contacted him, but he did not want to talk more, saying that they were damaged twice.

"I am injured by two parties, I bought it from them and from them, so we are not a party to the dispute. We have gone through a period that they have been poor, difficult, they have also lost for us that qatu kena banu, that is, they have four families, we don't even know what is going on", said Sh.K.


The police officer is reported to the Inspectorate, he is a co-owner of the property in Veternik

Regarding the delays in this case, the lawyers of the injured party, right from the beginning, had raised doubts that it was being done since powerful names have entered this property.

One of the owners mentioned in this case is also the police officer Nevruz Hasani whom the parties claim is involved in criminal actions for this property. In November 2023, the police officer Nexhat and Gursel Sadiku were also reported to the Police Inspectorate, a report which they completed on February 26, 2024.

According to the complaint, it is said that Hasani is already the owner of the property in Veternik and two properties in Mati 1, in one of which Afrim Gashi was also authorized to sell.

In addition, the parties also referred to the statement of official Hasani given to the police, saying that he secured the money for the property in Veternik from the sale of a bar on street C and after buying the property, he also sold a garage in C Street, Ylber Hysenit.

In this denunciation, they raise doubts about money laundering, asking to investigate the origin of his money, according to them, the company of Afrim Gashi, etc.

IPK has not answered whether it has started investigations on this denunciation.

Nevruz Hasani told "Oath of Justice" that he bought this property regularly.

"Listen, I bought it legitimately, in accordance with the market conditions, I also registered it in an orderly manner, I bought it with the sweat of my neck. They told me what I have," he said.
He called the statements of the injured party biased and subjective, saying that it is up to the state bodies to prove the doubts about this property. As he says that he filed a lawsuit for insult and defamation against the lawyer Keqekolla-Sadiku for the statements given in the show "Tempus".
Regarding the sale price of these plots, the lawyers of the injured party say that it was sold many times cheaper than the real price.

The owner of the construction company in this property said that all the facts are in court and that their work is legitimate.

"All the information has been clarified, I have nothing to add, the information is clear, the information is legal, that is, what you have heard on television, the same information, we have nothing more to add", said the owner of the construction company. Hysen Haxha.

The damage is considered great, while the Foundation will decide for the fifth time whether to finally order the seizure of this property or not.

"Exactly, this is the biggest surprise, the request for a temporary order, when it is suspected that there is a criminal offense, as in this particular case, the tapes are fired and it is not allowed that the damage is greater. In this particular case, the doubt arises that the court itself, by dragging the case from the first instance to the second instance, is allowing the problem to become bigger, the investments in the property to exceed the value of the property", said the lawyer of Saranda Keqekolla-Sadiku.

"Of course, this delay has harmful consequences depending on the criminal process or if eventually it turns out that the property derives from a criminal act and is decided by a final decision. Everything will go back to zero. Then, all those investments of these people, they have a high cost that is a problem to recover", said professor Fejzullah Hasani.