Edvin Kondili, Prosecutor of Serious Crimes Prosecution has been confirmed on duty by the Independent Qualification Commission. The decision was made this Friday, one day after the hearing.
Edvin Kondili has started his career in the justice system in 2004. He has graduated from the Magistrates School and has been working since 2004 at the Serious Crimes Prosecution Office. In parallel with the work as a prosecutor, Kondili has been engaged as a lecturer at the Magistrate School and as an expert on international organizations. He is one of the 25 candidates to become part of the Special Prosecution Office against Corruption and Organized Crime, SPAK.
Hearing – Attorney Edvin Kondili was assessed on the three vetting criteria, but question marks were raised only with regard to the claim of an amount of 1.1 million ALL, initially as spent on home purchase and again as austerity.
Jensila Pine’s relay affirmed that in connection with this problem, Kondili, a prosecutor at the Serious Crimes Prosecution Office, provided explanations; Meanwhile, the subject did not clarify in the hearing the case, but he thanked the panel of judges led by Roland Ilia, member Valbona Sanxhaktari and rapporteur Jensila Pine for the work done and agreed with the results of the investigation.
Relay Pine who read the findings of the investigation on Kondil noted that he had not had any problems in the criteria of professionalism and that of the figure. Also, two charges against him were dropped by the KPKbecause they had no indication of corrupt actions or violations of ethics.
In the property criterion it was noted that Kondili had bought an apartment 70 thousand euros and it was stressed that 60 thousand euros were paid on credit, while 10 thousand euros were savings and salary income.
The only obvious probation problem was the statement of a spouse’s spouse before marriage. According to the rapporteur the amount of 1.1 million was declared in 2007 and then was declared as used for home purchase, but also re-invented in the vetting statement as being spared.
The rapporteur said he had received the explanations from the prosecutor and that they would be evaluated. Kondil was pointing out the receipt of a 10,000-euro loan from her spouse’s brother, which was not used.
According to Kondil’s account and explanation, the loan was taken for the purpose of paying a portion of the loan to mitigate the interests, but then he and his wife had given up on it and the loan was returned without being used.
Movement of this money was done through the bank and KPC said the brother of the prosecutor’s spouse living in Spain brought legal documents proving his lawful income since the year 2000 and the following.
