FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The story of a bail for 42 thousand euros that ended with the loss of Dritan Lutaj's property and suspicions of false declaration against MP Brunilda Haxhiu...
A financial case involving bank loans, family relationships and enforcement has ended up in the attention of SPAK. According to the documents and claims submitted, Dritan Lutaj placed his property as collateral for loans that his cousin Dashnor Yzeiraj and his wife, MP Brunilda Haxhiu, took from the bank. After failing to repay the obligations, the guarantor's property was executed to cover the debt that amounted to over 44 thousand euros. The case has raised questions about the financial relations between the parties, the declarations of assets and the legal responsibilities that are expected to be verified by the justice authorities.
A serious financial story involving bank loans, family relationships and the loss of real estate is raising serious questions about the role of Democratic Party MP Brunilda Haxhiu and her husband Dashnor Yzeiraj. At the center of this story is their cousin, Dritan Lutaj, who claims to have lost his property after agreeing to become a guarantor for loans the couple had taken from the bank.
According to legal documents and bank contracts related to this matter, it all started in 2006, when Dashnor Yzeiraj and Brunilda Haxhiu took out a bank loan to buy an apartment. As with any such loan, the bank requires collateral to ensure the repayment of the amount received. At this point, their cousin, Dritan Lutaj, comes into play, who agrees to help his family and mortgages his property as collateral for the bank.
Initially, the loan was about 20 thousand euros, while later this loan was increased to about 22 thousand euros through another bank contract, for a total of 42 thousand euros. The relevant documents show that the guarantor for these loans was precisely Dritan Lutaj's property, which was mortgaged in favor of the bank to ensure repayment of the obligation.
But according to financial documents and subsequent bank procedures, the loan was not repaid according to the terms of the contract. When the borrower did not pay the obligation, the bank initiated legal proceedings for the execution of the debt. As a result of this procedure, it was decided that the guarantor's assets would be used to repay the outstanding loan.
At this stage, the financial drama for Dritan Lutaj also begins. His property, which had been mortgaged to guarantee the loan of relatives, ended up in the execution procedure and was then sold to repay the debt to the bank. The documents show that through the sale of this property and the execution procedures, an amount exceeding 44 thousand euros was liquidated, including interest and execution fees.
This means that for a loan of around 42 thousand euros, due to interests and legal procedures, the guarantor ended up losing an asset that covered a much larger financial obligation. In practice, this means that a citizen lost his property for a loan from which he had not received any financial benefit.
According to the documents related to this story, the financial burden ended up on the guarantor, while the borrowers did not appear to have personally covered the financial obligation they had assumed. The story becomes even more serious due to the family relationship between the parties. Dritan Lutaj was not a random guarantor in a business deal, but a family relative who agreed to help his cousin and his wife get a home loan. It was this family trust, according to his claims, that ended up turning into a huge economic loss.
The documents related to this case also mention doubts about asset declarations. According to these documents, some payments or financial benefits related to this process are not reflected in the asset declaration forms filed with the institutions responsible for controlling the assets of public officials, and therefore we may be dealing with a criminal offense.
This is a serious legal problem related to the obligation of every public official to declare every source of income and every property benefit.
The case is made even more sensitive because one of the people involved is a member of the Albanian Parliament. Albanian law requires public officials to be fully transparent about their assets and any financial benefits they may have.
This fact, in addition to raising serious suspicions of false declaration and non-declaration of income or property benefits, according to the allegations presented, may also constitute elements of the criminal offense of theft by deception with serious consequences.
According to the argument presented in the documentation, the potential financial gain through the use of the trust relationship and the transfer of the financial burden to the guarantor has caused considerable economic damage, which makes the matter subject to verification by the judicial authorities to determine whether in this case the elements of criminal liability are met according to the legislation in force.
Currently, this issue is under the attention of the justice authorities and is in the hands of SPAK, where all financial and legal documentation related to this story is expected to be verified. Following this process, it is expected that MP Brunilda Haxhiu will provide explanations and face allegations related to suspicions of fraud and unjust financial gain, while the investigations will determine whether in this case there are elements of criminal offenses and legal liability for the persons involved./ Pamphlet
Lini një Përgjigje