Why is the Bureau for Confiscating Wealth mostly problematic for the diaspora?

The Bureau for Confiscating Property turns out to be problematic, especially for the diaspora. Why?

In clarifying its objections to the Bureau's draft property seizure bill, MP Doarsa Kica has clarified a particularly problematic issue for our diaspora.

The Venice Commission speaks of the constitutionality of the Bureau bill. The Bureau is very problematic. The Bureau stipulates that all public servants in Kosovo will be subjected to the Bureau. Actually, it's going to be some form in a clink to say. Today we have about 80 thousand public officials, coming in and out of 2008, and we may have more. It says that at any moment where we understand there is a differential of legitimate revenues, with assets that exist and reach 25 thousand euros worth, then the court will be required to seize property”, said last night. MP on Rubik show, Kriscope.

This law, in the way it was processed in the Assembly, the MP says it will bring much trouble to our diaspora, thus elaborating:

The question that I've put forward is: what we do with the revenues coming from the exiles, which are not only few, but because of our Kosovo reality, do not always come to work declared by the country where they come.

If an official in Decan bought his aunt a little bit, his uncle a little, a flat that's going to be worth 25 thousand euros, but they got a job here in black like we say, what happens in that case?”, she says.

The MP gives away this explanation:

We must definitely have international co-operation, say for example Germany, forgive me for what the Adriatic Kelmendi has in it. He says, for example, the Adriatic Kelmendi has 600 euros a month, and with what he gets, declared, he shouldn't be able to send you 2,000 euros a month. And we know that that 2 thousand euros have been collected in black, undeclared. First, we are identifying the state in the Magyar, a Kosovar who is not declaring his income. Second, we're legitimising the confiscated property, from the revenues that we've constantly thanked”, she said, conveys Periscopi.

Remember that the Kosovo government, with unanimous votes, had adopted the bill for the Bureau for verification and confiscation of unwarranted property. The bureau was later approved in first reading at the Kosovo Assembly.

The purpose of this bill is to regulate the process of verifying and confiscating property acquired unwarrantedly, as well as the establishment, organisation and competencies of the State Bureau for Verification and Confiscating of Inexcusable Riches.

Under the draft, the procedure for verification and seizure of property will include property of officials from February 17th 2008, as well as worth another 10 years after the official person stops exercising his post.

Under the draft bill, the proposal is submitted to the Constitutional Court in Pristina at the Special Department.

The procedure for reviewing the proposal of verification and seizure of property is carried out by the only judge on the first scale.

Depending on the course of the court hearing, the only judge gets a court sentence that acknowledges the proposal for the complete seizure of unwarranted property, the partial seizure of property to the extent of inexcusability, or refuses the proposal as unfounded when proving the justification of property origin.

According to the draft, the causes for refusing to propose property seizures are: the proposal for confiscation included property whose property is not permitted by the law, when the proposal is inefficiency, when the distribution of property does not exceed 25 thousand euros, when evidence proven that wealth was acquired in trust by third persons.

The bill envisions that when property conspiracy is not possible because of extermination or alienation then substitute values will be confiscated.

The unwarranted property of seizures included the personal property of the person under consideration, the wealth acquired jointly by both mates or coexistence, the wealth of children who have not reached adulthood, and the wealth of the person under consideration.

Therefore, the bias with which the seizure of unwarranted property is ordered can be seen as a regular legal tool and extraordinary revisional means and requirements for repeating the procedure.

The execution of the indictment for the seizure of unwarranted property is carried out according to the rules of the basic procedure by the court in the first instance, which has the bias.

The property seized under the Law will be administered by the relevant Agency for the Management of Secuested or Confiscated Riches.

According to Article 63 of this property originally confiscated property, requirements have been met that have been secured through confiscated property, then obligations to the payment of taxes that the party is in charge of paying taxes, and the remainder of confiscated property is transferred to the Government of the Republic of Kosovo/Periscope