Ramiz Kelmendi will be investigated for power theft with ETC

This court, with its decision, has rejected the accused Kelmendi's request for dropping the indictment and cutting the procedure against him exercised against the former Communist prosecutor in Pristina, as well as as how unbashed it has even praised Apel's prosecution's request for dropping the procedure against accused Kelmendi.

Kelmendi is charged with criminal activity “serious recovery”, due to suspicion that from unproved date until June 30th 2011, the company “Elkos”, in Fushe Kosova, Kelmendi's property has been misusing electricity, damaging the Kosovo Energy Corporation (KEK) to many of 22.801.19 euros.

According to Judge Rrustem Begolli's decision, which has provided “Justice Trust”, it is said that this court has found that the claims of the Appeals Prosecutor do not stand by the argument that the criminal act <x2-year-old”, by Article 253, paragraph 2, points 1. Regarding KKP paragraph 1, it is punishable from six months to five years, and based on Article 90, paragraph 1, subparagraph 4, is five years from carrying out the penal offense more than three years in prison, while according to Article 91, NC 6 of KP “criminal persecution is prohibited in any case when the prescription term (an absolute ban on prosecution) has passed.

After analyzing and reviewing the subject documents, the court has found that the defendant's request in this phase of the prosecution's prosecution proceedings cannot be approved, because the actual situation for existing or not criminal work will be proven after observing the trial, in which witnesses Shacir Demiri and Hajrullah Plana, KEK workers, the district in Pristina”, is said to be questioned.

It also says that the evidence procedure will include seeing some processes, the flow of active electricity peripheral rating, some reports, billing and incavation, and others.

According to this act, the court must ascertain who has been responsible at the time of the indictment, since the second session, held on April 23, 2018, accused Ramiz Kelmendi, has declared that Driton Canton and Agron Bajraktari were at the time responsible. To confirm the accused's claim, the court is said to have questioned Gjundmann and Bajraktari.

The Appeals Prosecutor had come up against the former Municipal Prosecutor in Pristina, which on December 12th 2012, had filed charges against the company's owner “Elkos”, at the same time Kosovo Parliament MP Ramiz Kelmendi, who is accused of stealing the electricity.

The prosecutor of this prosecutor, Enver Sokoli, on February 22nd of this year, has addressed the Court of Appeals, with the proposal that the indictment against Ramiz Kelmendi be changed, rejected and the criminal proceedings fired.

In this letter to the prosecutor, to the Court of Appeals, which had provided “Justice Vow”, this proposal argued with the fact that the absolute prescription of prosecution has reached this case, since the establishment of the indictment, December 12, 2012, until the first act of the First Court, on December 21, 2017, has been more than six years.

This prosecutor, as stated in her letter, considered that in concrete cases it has come to the absolute prescription of prosecution, for which even the second degree court cares on official duty.

“Taking into account Article 106, par1, 1.5 of KPRK points, prosecution cannot be taken if it has spent 3 years in carrying out criminal work, punishable by more than 1 year in prison, while Article 107, par8 of KPRK, prosecution is prohibited in any case when the term of prescription has passed, since, allegedly, the criminal act has been committed by the date 30.06.2011, to the date of today there is no firm conviction and due to commit the crime has passed six years ago, I consider that the case of absolute prosecution has come before and I consider that criminal prosecution to be violated by the order of the court, and that the prosecutor has been issued to the court, and that the prosecutor has been issued by the order of law.

And according to the decision of February 26, 2018, of the Court of Appeals, which had also secured “Justice Vow “, this court had made the decision by which it approved Kelmendi's complaint and annulled the first degree decision, turning the case into restoration.

According to Appeals, the first degree has not given convincing reasoning, when it has rejected Kelmendi's claims that he is not responsible for the prosecution's prosecution, but if he has criminal responsibility, it should have persons responsible for his company.

The first degree against what the defendant has filed in order to drop the indictment, with the claim that for all points of his business, authorized persons under labour contracts, which according to the defendant must give responsibility, if there is criminal responsibility in the concrete case, has refused the defendant's request without convincing reasoning, but only by confirming that whether or not the criminal work is existing in question, it will be confirmed in the key review”, further stated in Apel's decision.

According to the Court of Appeals, the actions Kelmendi is accused of is a work that many more can do.

This court's criminal collegation estimates that the completion of the first-degree court in case
It's not really fair, because the court has not been issued at all in the key evidence that confirms the well-founded criminal act of theft committed by the defendant or not, because according to legal provisions the incriminating actions alleged in the charge are actions that could be committed to any person who means the owner of the unit, but in concrete cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the criminal work does so as well as the other person who acts in the interests of the user, the person who has a warrant for custody. Given the fact that the defendant is the owner of the company “Elkos” includes several working points in the entire territory of Kosovo, as well as the fact that all of its working points are committed to responsible persons, which also offers concrete evidence in this case and that work contracts, then turns out responsible for the alleged incriminating actions can fall into the burden of responsible persons who have contracts and on the basis of contracts have responsibility for their work, so the court estimates that the defendants' claims based on this direction are (4)2> in the decision of February 26, 2018.

The Court of Appeals had also asked the court to avoid the offenses found by this court to assess Kelmendi's objections and complaint and to consider the Appeals Prosecutor's proposal.

“We re-establish the case judge must avoid the above-intensive violations, assess the evidence offered by the defendant, and, after the need to take into account other complaint claims, as well as the Appeals Prosecutor's Proposal, and then make the right decision and be based on the legal provisions”, the Apel Court's conclusion was said.

Otherwise, at the Constitutional Court in Pristina, initial sessions were held on December 21, 2017, and the second review on January 29, 2018, in which Kelmendi had denied guilt and demanded that Judge Rrustem Begolli drop the indictment against him.

Judge Begolli, on January 29, 2018, had rejected Kelmendi's objections and had thus confirmed the indictment.

In line with Beglo's decision to ensure “Justice Vow”, it was said that following the analysis and examination of the subject paperwork, the court has found that the defendant Kelmendi's request in this phase of the prosecution's prosecution procedure cannot be approved, because the actual situation for the existence of criminal work will be confirmed after the trial.

Against that ruling, Kelmend was addressed to the Court of Appeals, claiming that the first degree has committed substantial violations of the penal procedure's provisions, wrong or incomplete confirmation of the actual situation and violation of criminal law.

Kelmendi had proposed that Apel change Judge Begoll's decision and cast an act of insubordination.

Kelmendi in his objections against the indictment had stressed that all of this was caused by KEK officials, the District in Pristina, in order to cause him harm and tarnish his name.

Meanwhile, at the second review session, prosecutor Menduhi Kastrati, who had filed the indictment against Kelmendi, had said Kelmendi's objections against the indictment were unfounded and had asked Judge Begoli to reject Kelmendi's objections.

The Founding Procuror in Pristina, has accepted the accused's parachute that concerns opposition to evidence and the request to cast the indictment. We've analyzed the defendant's parachute and at today's hearing we're verbally declared opposing the same parachute. The accused in his statement has attached some evidence that is not in the survey, such as submitted a list of which is evidenced to be the deputy of the 4th legislature, then, a copy of the business number, a tip on business registration, consumer transactions released by the damaged side, and also a work contract of a worker working under his business”, prosecutor Kattra had said.

Kastrati had declared that the indictment has sufficient joint evidence confirming the underlying suspicion, with which he has asked the court to decide on its decision to refuse the request to contest evidence and drop the indictment.

According to the indictment of December 12, 2012, which had also provided “Justice Trust”, Kelmendi is charged with serious criminal activity “serious recovery”, due to the suspicion that from unproved date until June 30th 2011, the company “Elkos”, in Fushe Kosova, Kelmen's property has been misusing electricity.

The prosecution claims that when KEK workers have gone to do searches at that company, they have found that the intended defendant has used electricity unauthorizedly, not registering two-thirds of the energy, as two transformatators of the current that have been out of measure have been found there, while one component was cut off from the connection.

On the basis of the indictment, with these actions, two-thirds of the electricity had not been registered, with what KEK has done damages worth 22.801.19 euros.