Tirana prosecution office sought the imposition of personal security measures “Remand in custody,” “House arrest,” and “Suspension from exercising a public duty or service” against citizens D.B., I.Ç., B.S., Th.L., F.Z., M.Th., and A.Ç., suspected of the criminal offenses of “Falsification of documents,” committed in complicity, and “Abuse of office,” as provided for under Articles 186/2, 248, and 25 of the Criminal Code.

The investigations into criminal proceeding no. 12845 of 2024 revealed that citizens D.B. and I.Ç. took possession of a property owned by another individual with an area of 2,350 m², not through a valid legal title but by falsifying documents and presenting false information, thereby artificially creating a situation of unlawful possession.

After unlawfully taking possession of the property, the same individuals continued to engage in acts of intimidation against citizen A.H., preventing him from entering the premises and physically blocking access through various means used to control the area, thereby creating a climate of pressure and fear aimed at consolidating their unlawful gain.

Meanwhile, the other individuals under investigation—citizens Th.L., B.S., and F.Z.—were found, based on the records collected in this criminal proceeding, to have carried out administrative actions in violation of the law while processing the property case of the injured party, citizen A.H. These actions led to a misrepresentation of the property’s actual status, presenting and registering it as being in the possession of citizens D.B. and I.Ç., even though the property was, in reality, under the possession and use of citizen A.H.
At this stage of the investigation, the Prosecution Office deemed it reasonable and lawful to impose the personal security measure of “Suspension from exercising a public duty or service” against the head of the sector, F.Z., and two State Cadastre Agency (ASHK) specialists. Th.L. and B.S. conducted site measurements of the property belonging to A.H., but recorded it in official documentation as being in the possession of D.B. and I.Ç., as well as F.Z. in his capacity as head of the sector, was responsible for overseeing, verifying, and approving the legality of the administrative case, but failed to ensure that the documentation was accurate and legally compliant.
Following the issuance of property certificates and legalization permits, the property was transferred through notarial contracts and substantial financial transactions, creating a real risk that evidence could be lost and hindering the investigation. Considered alongside all other collected evidence, these actions indicate that they were not accidental but part of a deliberate scheme in violation to the law. Pursuant to Articles 274, 275, and 276 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was deemed necessary to impose a property security measure and seize the property, as the assets unlawfully obtained constitute both the direct object of the criminal offense and crucial physical evidence for the investigation.
In light of the foregoing and pursuant to Articles 228, 229, 237, 238, 242, 258, 259, and 274 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution requested the following:
•  The imposition of the preventive measure of “Remand in custody” for the individual under investigation, D.B., for the criminal offense of “Falsification of documents” under Article 186/2 of the Criminal Code;
•  The imposition of the preventive measure of “House arrest” for the individual under investigation, I.Ç., for the criminal offense of “Falsification of documents” under Article 186/2 of the Criminal Code;
•  The imposition of the restrictive measure of “Suspension from public office or duty” under Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the individual under investigation, B.S., for the criminal offense of “Abuse of office,” committed in complicity, under Articles 248 and 25 of the Criminal Code;
•  The imposition of the restrictive measure of “Suspension from public office or duty” for the individual under investigation, Th.L., for the criminal offense of “Abuse of office,” committed in complicity, under Articles 248 and 25 of the Criminal Code;
•  The imposition of the restrictive measure of “Suspension from public office or duty” for the individual under investigation, F.Z., for the criminal offense of “Abuse of office,” committed in complicity, under Articles 248 and 25 of the Criminal Code; and
• The enforcement of preventive seizure under Article 274 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the property registered as No. 430/19, Vol. 51, p. 130, ZK 2679, with a total area of 2,350 m², owned by the legal entity “GARFFS CONSTRUCTION.”