FLASH NEWS
Will the millions earned from prostitution be confiscated? The Supreme Court returns the case for retrial
2024-12-08 18:33:07 / AKTUALITET
The Supreme Court has returned the debate on whether or not nearly 4.5 million new lek found and seized in the safe of a woman convicted of "exploitation of prostitution" should be confiscated by the state.
The value of the money, of which 3.9 million lek, 2300 British pounds, 3390 euros and 50 Australian dollars were seized in 2016 at the residence of the defendant with the initials A. Sh. In the same building in the village of Mushqeta, on the Tirana-Elbasan highway, the woman owned a bar and used two girls for prostitution, who at the same time employed them as waitresses.
In the confrontation with the Court of Tiraëna, she was accused of "exploitation of prostitution", "maintenance of premises for prostitution" and "unauthorized possession of cold weapons" and was ultimately sentenced to 4 years and 8 months in prison, while the sum of 4.5 million ALL confiscated. The situation changed in the Appeal in 2020, where the defendant was not only able to win release from the Probation Service for the remainder of the sentence, but also to get the money back. This is due to the fact that Appel accepted her request to return the seized amount of money.
According to the Appeal, the First Instance did not have sufficient evidence that the money in the safe had benefited from the exploitation of prostitution. According to the Appeal, the defendant has claimed that the source of the money is her son's work in England and savings over the years. The decision of the Appeal was contested by the Prosecution in the Supreme Court, which decided a few days ago to return the case for retrial to the Appeal with another panel of judges.
In the complete decision provided by A2, the Supreme Court emphasizes that the Appellant did not justify his decision according to the established standards.
" From the court decision, there is no motivation/reasoning in relation to the ratio that has the monetary amount reflected in the motivational mandates for sending money from the son of the defendant A. Sh. with the amount of money seized. Likewise, the court does not reflect why the monetary amounts benefited from third parties were considered to be for the defendant A. Sh. ", it was said in the decision of the Supreme Court. / A2
Happening now...
The shame of Saliu's revolutionaries in Brussels
Nga Bato Kosova
ideas
top
Alfa recipes
services
- POLICE129
- STREET POLICE126
- AMBULANCE112
- FIREFIGHTER128