One individual has denounced the suspicious concerns of the National Commercial Bank (BKT) and the Bank of Albania (BSH). There was enough credit from him to reveal these affairs.
Boldnews.al has secured a court decision, detailing the whole scheme as the case was first dismissed by the prosecution, but were black seals those who ordered the reshape of this issue. According to this decision, the case was denounced at the General Prosecutor’s Office on 1 June 2015. Citizen Olsi A. addressed a letter to the Chief Prosecutor Llalla, alleging the criminal offenses provided for in articles 135, 143, 248 of the Criminal Code from representatives of a second tier bank and of the Bank of Albania leaders.
Because this letter, which contained in substance the principle of violation of the law, violated the regulations required by both Bank of Albania and second-tier officials for their daily activities and the Bank of Albania controls on the various reports of second tier banks at the Bank of Albania, not expressing in essence the facts and findings made by the person who wrote this letter was informed citizen Olsi A., to file and report the facts that he had found to be in violation of applicable laws and to submit all the documentation available to him on this issue.
On 17 June 2015, Olsi A., who has reported the National Commercial Bank (BKT) and Bank of Albania (BSH) officials, has been presented for the following circumstances.
He stated that in 2004, in April, for the fact that he wanted to buy a residential apartment in the construction company Edil -Al Sh.pk, with the latter agreed to the price of the apartment and agreed that since the total of the 53,500 (fifty-three thousand five hundred) euro would be paid to the company in the amount of 21,500 and the remainder would be settled by a loan that the claimant would receive with BKT and concretely the value of 32,000 euros.
Together they signed the loan and entrepreneurship contract. The terms of this contract were that the bank took over the obligation of the borrower against the construction company Edil – Al Sh.pk and the borrower, ie the storekeeper, had to repay the loan for a term of 10 years (120 months) with a monthly installment of EUR 395.68 small fluctuations based on the change of Euribor. In this contract it was also foreseen that 10% of the loan value (which coincides with the amount of 3.200 euro) would be blocked by the bank in order to be awarded to the entrepreneur within 31.07.2005, the deadline for issuing the certificate of the ownership of the entrepreneur in favor of the borrower and under these conditions, would further fix the mortgage burden on this apartment in favor of BKT, until the loan repayment by the storyteller.
According to the allegation of the complainant, it results that BKT, on 29.04.2004, disbursed in favor of the borrower the amount of 28.160 Euros, adding to the value of 640 Euros shed by the borrower as a condition of prepayment by him of 2% of the value of the loan amounted to 28,800 euros. So this last value is the residual value of the loan that BKT has to disburse, without holding the value of 3.200 euros which is the guarantee for the issuance of ownership documents.
The plaintiff claimed that this was the first anomaly that occurred with BKT, which did not shed his entire loan amount on his account, but only the value that would automatically go to the account of the entrepreneur. The remaining value of 3,200 Euros was retained by BKT, and was not credited to the borrower’s account, which could very well be in his account, blocked, thus unavailable, until 31.07. 2005, when the entrepreneur under the agreement should have access to the documentation of ownership.
Since the entrepreneur did not respect the predetermined terms in the contract, where this apartment was figured on behalf of the storyteller Olsi A. but with a mortgage loan in favor of BKT until the moment of total loan repayment, the claimant claimed that the value of EUR 3,200 should have been shed in his account and made available funds in turn, even by converting it into a non-withdrawable deposit.
The plaintiff claimed that by 2009 he paid monthly installments worth approximately 400 euros per month at the Tirana BKT 1 branch, and also claimed that he was informed by this branch that his loan file would be transferred by the Tirana Branch 1 at the “Ballet School Agency”. With the repayment of the loan with the same installments, it continued until 02.05.2014, the date when it completely closed the obligation to BKT. At this time it is also announced by the entrepreneur to initiate the procedure for submitting the ownership certificate from the entrepreneur to the predicator Olsi A. But in the meantime, the entrepreneur also requested that he make the last payment of 3.200 euros, still pending Its GDP. At the moment, the complainant has begun to inquire about all the documentation contained in his credit file that he started to request any possible documentation, starting with the documentation attached to the 2004 contract of origin. He also requested also making a payment of 3,200 euros in favor of the entrepreneur. Based on these requests, which began to become frequent because BKT did not reply or did not put at its disposal the documents he requested, he addressed the Personal Data Protection and Protection Commissioner.
Subsequently, he received several documents and found that he had two loans and not a loan of 32,000 euros, which started in 2004. He found that in July 2008 he was opened another account, yes on his behalf, an account he was unaware of since the loan received in 2004 was disbursed to another account number. In this new account number, he was credited an amount of 22,022 euros, while in the old account, this amount was credited, in order to close the total loan. So BKT had opened a new account where he normally made payments but without knowing which account number they were making.
For this fact he has expressed doubts about how these operations were performed, the opening of a new account number, the fact that in this account number it resulted that he had received a loan in the amount of 22,022 euros and the circumstances over which BKT – he did not get the documentation he was looking for, prompted him to become interested in his credit at the BSH. The suspicion lies in the fact that all these operations for which he advertise that he was unaware did not normally have to be accompanied by the relevant documentation.
From correspondence with BSH, he confirmed the fact that the BSH had reported from BKT, loans on behalf of Olsi A. reporters in the amount of 22,022 Euros, not loans at 32,000 Euros. Regarding the monthly installments of the loan, the BSH informs that the terms of this loan were that the monthly payment installment was in the amount of 314 Euros for a 70-month term. According to his calculations and the information provided by the BSH, this loan was received by the interest rate teller 0. Such a claimant claims that it is not true as the bank has received interest from the loan granted to him and that the monthly installments which he paid with BKT were not 314 Euro but about 400 Euros.
Under these conditions, where the BSH has registered such a loan, ie interest 0, despite the fact that BKT reports a monthly installment at the value of 314 Euros and from the payment mandate it is proved that the borrower has paid over the entire period approximately 400 Euros, there is a suspicion that BKT, by not declaring a profit from interest, thus avoids the taxes that derive from the profit that BKT receives precisely from the interest of the loans. In the statement, Olsi A. states that this scheme, according to the confidential information he has obtained from his sources, was not used solely in the case of his loan, but with all the loans transferred from Tirana 1 BKT branch in other branches of this bank.
