Appeal confirms prison sentences and fines to five accused of defrauding 176 residents

Against this indictment act in Appeals have exercised defenders of attorneys, Liridon Tafa, Murat Demolli, Fanol Krasniqi, Naim Rudari and Ramiz Krasniqi, with claims that the Foundation has made substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions, violation of criminal law, wrong or incomplete proof of the actual situation, as well as the decision regarding criminal sanctions.

They have proposed to the Court of Appeals, to approve their complaints as being based, while the amended act of cancelling and the accused released from prosecution, or the case be turned into retrial, reports the “Justice Voting”.

But the Appeals through its decision made in 20.08.2024 has estimated that the alleged complaint claims of the defenders do not stand, nor are there other violations of the criminal procedure provisions for which, according to official duty, this court is concerned, which were conditioned to annul the complaint.

The Court of Appeals has ruled that there are no safeguards' complaint claims that the complaint case contains essential violations of criminal procedure provisions from Article 384 par.1 and 2 of the KPP, because the bias device is clear, understandable and concrete, in full compliance with the reasoning and drafting of the device.

In rationalising the complaint, the right reasons are said to have been given over all the crucial facts of this criminal-juridical case, acting on the provisions of Article 369 par. 6 of KPPK, where the first-instance court, has presented the reasons for each point of the court's act and those of fact and law enforcement, which both rights and legals also approved by the Court of Appeals.

On the other hand, in Apel's decision, in terms of the defendant's claim of the accused Estrida Bulnjak, that the complaint is involved in procedural violations because there is no reasoning on the crucial facts which constitute the elements of the criminal work's image, are said to be unfounded claims, since in the reasoning of the court's complaint bias, clear and concrete reasons have been given in proportion to each accused of criminal acts for which were found guilty.

While, in the claims of defendant Vigan Bulnjak, that essential violations also consist of the first degree court not only supporting the indictment without being issued at all in its verification, according to Appeals are groundless claims.

“... at the point of an indictment device of May 12, 2016, accused E. B, V.B. and B.V, have been accused of committing criminal work Krim organised by Article 274 pars. 1 related to par.2 and in relation to the E.B par.3 of the KPK (old) -- related to criminal fraud by Article 261 par.1 related to par.2 of the KPK (year-old), however, from evidence administered during the trial review -- has proved that in the actions of E. B, V.B. and B.V, have manifested elements of the criminal offense from Article 335 par.2 to par.2 and par.1 concerning Article 31 and 81 of KPRK, thus excluding organised crime”, the Appeals ruling says.

On the other hand, in the claims of defendant Burim Vokrri that the court has committed substantial violations of the fact that the indictment was filed with the provisional code, while the court has condemned it to the new penal code, Apel has estimated that even this claim does not stand.

“ ... is a fact that the indictment was established with the penal code, which was in force at the time of the criminal offence, however, the accused have been convicted of criminal fraud committed in the ongoing act, as incriminating acts of the accused included the time period following the introduction of the Penal Code published in the official journal No.19/July 13, 2012, which has entered power from January 1st 2013, after the same have continued to keep them at the provision of damage to the building of <18x>, the Court of Appeals reportedly.

And for the claims of defendant Xhemajl Arifi's defender, the claim on this matter is overstepped the exclusive competence of the Founding Court in Pristina, while the Special Department has handled this case, which the court has not yet been compatible at all, according to Appeals and these claims are unfounded.

“Initially pertaining to competence have been given reasons that have already been mentioned to the defender himself in case the criminal case as a damaged party were judges and prosecutors, so in order not to question the objective of the Constitutional Court in Pristina in the case of setting the same subject, the same subject has been held for further treatment at the Constitutional Court in Pec”, the verdict said.

The Court of Appeals has also considered the claims of accused Valon Orllani's defender ungrounded, that in the latter part of the indictment it is said that “E.B. He bought him a site in the village of Lly... on the surface of five golds, while the grounds of the act are said to be that this land of five gold was not purchased by N. K but from B. G” According to the college assessment, given the fact that this subject is volumeous such concessions may be obvious which could result in technical error.

Thus, the Court of Appeals found regarding the wrong and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation in relation to complaints in relation to the wrong and incomplete proof of the actual situation has found that the court of the first instance and the actual situation in this criminal case has proved fairly and completely.

While found on the penalty ruling, the second-degree court has assessed the issue in terms of the sentence, and estimates that the defenders' claims of a mild sentence are not based.

Therefore, this court has estimated that the conviction pronounced against the accused by the Supreme Court on the grounds of seeing how to handle the indictment is in line with the intensity of the risk of committing criminal acts, the degree of criminal responsibility of the accused, the circumstances of committing, the consequences caused, and that with it the accused would be prevented from committing criminal acts in the future, and would prevent other persons from performing criminal acts.

Therefore, this court has estimated that the conviction pronounced against the accused by the Supreme Court on the grounds of seeing how to handle the indictment is in line with the intensity of the risk of committing criminal acts, the degree of criminal responsibility of the accused, the circumstances of committing, the consequences caused, and that with it the accused would be prevented from committing criminal acts in the future, and would prevent other persons from performing criminal acts.

Otherwise, the Constitutional Court in Pec on June 15th 2022 had convicted the five accused of defrauding 176 residence buyers, Estrida Bunjak, Burim Vokrin, Vigan Bunjak, Xhemajl Arifin and Valon Orlain, punishing (with) 30 years in prison and 450 thousand euros in fines. On the other hand, Faton Orlan had been released from the indictment for the criminal act “Money Passing”.

But this case had been turned into retrial by the Court of Appeals, rejecting charges against accused Estrida Bulnjak for criminal work “Avoid the tax” and approve the complaints of accused defenders Estrida Bulnjaku, Vigan Bunjaku, Burim Vokri, Valon Orlani, and Xhemajl Arifi.

However, even in the retrial, in 19,10,2023, the foundation had sentenced the five high - law indictees (all along) to 20 years in prison and 330 thousand euros.

In contrast, according to the indictment filed on May 12, 2016, defendants Estrida Bunjaku, Vigan Bounjaku, and Burim Vokri were charged with criminal acts “organised crime” and “Mage”, since, according to the indictment, from September 2nd 2009 to May 15, 2014, three acting in the form of a criminal group have obtained illegal financial means worth about 2 million euros.

Such a thing, according to the indictment, was achieved by false appearance, hiding the facts, which has led other people to act at the expense of their wealth, and has brought about 176 citizens to the launch of convenient offers for sale of residences, to the “Rejep Luci” street in Pristina.

The prosecution claimed that first Estrida Bunnjak, has registered the NSHN business company “ERA”, meanwhile on October 14, 2009, has also registered the company “Vennis - O-GR”, KPS, under which this company has had high and low construction for primary activities through which, according to the prosecution, the activities of the organised criminal group, led and supervised by Estrida Bunjaku, have begun.

The prosecution claimed that these three defendants initially were offered pre-contact signing with all rights and obligations, with promises of building and handing over residences, in the pre-contract terms of 12-18 months.

All in accordance with the indictment, in advance the injured have been forced that financial means in much smaller than 5 thousand euros to the largest amount of 200 thousand euros, pay in the company's accounts “Vennis O” and in the personal accounts of defendant Estrida Bunnjak, which through its officials has drawn in a day.

Otherwise, Estrida Bunnjaku, Xhemail Arifi, Burim Vokrri, Valon Orllani and Faton Orllani were accused of committing criminal acts “Money laundering”, so that financial means in the higher amount, given that they stem from criminal activity, trying to convert, transfer, in order to hide or disguise nature, source, country, service, movement, or property ownership.

The defendant Estrida Bunjkau, at the third point of the indictment, was also charged with committing criminal acts “Cause of bankruptcy”, as a responsible person in the business organization, given the business organisation's insolvency, with the non-resolvency of means or the transfer of them at an extremely low price, excessive debt charge, or taking over unprofessional obligations, has caused the bankruptcy of its business subject “Venis O dealt.k, business that, according to the indictment, is established in order of financial benefits against legal laws.

While the same, at the fourth point of the indictment, was charged with committing criminal acts “Avoid taxing”, worth 80 thousand and 610 euros and 50 cents, so that in order to conceal partial budgetary obligations, on behalf of paying taxes on all required types of law has provided false data regarding its business income and other relevant facts about the financial situation.