The Prosecutor of the Serious Crimes Prosecution, Donika Prela, came today before the Independent Qualification Commission for a re-evaluation hearing.
The Vetting process for Prela was conducted by a trial-panel led by Roland Ilia, Olsi Komici and Valbona Sanxhaktari. Prela chose to be present at the hearing without a lawyer present.
Case reporter, Valbona Sanxhaktari, said that based on the report provided by the "High Inspectorate of Declaration and Audit of Assets and Conflict of Interests" (ILDKPKI), Prela did not declare the borrowing of 1 million lekë.
The value of buying land from Prela is not verifiable yet as the area is in continuous development.
According to the Independent Qualification Commission, Prela's income is a result from her salary as a prosecutor and her husband, Vangjel Prela, who earns his income from his salary as an engineer.
“Regarding her husband’s income, there have been some problems for the years between 2003-2005.
“A part of her husband’s salary has not been taxed.
“Prela has declared that her husband has provided the citizen with the initial R.N with 25 thousand Euros through two installments. The amount is claimed to be borrow from his cousin where he has followed up on the loan with interest,” according to the reporter.
The investigation was also conducted for a 96 square meter apartment in the name of her spouse who purchased it for 32,100 Euros.
The price of the apartment is lower than that of the market. Regarding the value of the purchase, several investigations were carried out by the Independent Qualification Commission and requested the name of the construction company.
The company has replied stating that Mr. Prela was an employee there and received a discounted price. According to the company, this practice has also been done with other employees.
The Prosecutor at the Serious Crimes Prosecution, Donika Prela has been challenged by the International Monitoring Operation and the ONM representative, Theo Jacobs, on the sources of her husband's income.
Theo Jacobs directly asked Prela why her husband paid in cash.
He stated: “That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, asking her to argue why her husband is a victim in this case and has evaded paying taxes.”
“This may seem to be questionable but I want to know if the unpaid taxes are just a coincidence.”
“Help me understand that this is not a coincidence and that your spouse was lied to by the construction company. They have set this up in such a way as to avoid paying taxes. “
According to Jacobs, the fundamental question remains: Is Mr. Prela a victim or a collaborator in this scheme?