Two young men questioned over the suspected attempted fraud against Armand Duka have given different testimonies about how they were approached and who involved them in the scheme. At this stage, the official version still leaves unclear gaps about the specific roles and the person suspected of directing the main communication.
Orest Balla’s version
According to the testimony given by Orest Balla, he was initially contacted through an Instagram message by an unknown person. His claim is that he was promised a payment of €2,000 in exchange for communicating with another person.
Further, Balla stated that a person had arrived by car and had given him a phone number. Through that number, according to him, he had communicated with Armand Duka’s son, who turned out to be a police officer.
He denies knowing the other arrested person
In his testimony, Orest Balla also claimed that he did not previously know Edison Korra. This detail carries weight in the investigation, as it directly concerns the link between the two people involved in the incident.
For the moment, it is not clear whether investigators have other elements that confirm or refute this claim.
Edison Korra gives a different account
Unlike Balla, Edison Korra gave a different version of how he became involved in this episode. According to him, it was Orest Balla himself who had contacted him at a cafe and asked him to pick up a package.
This discrepancy between the two testimonies raises questions about the real chain of communication and about who is trying to shift responsibility onto the other.
Suspicions about a third person
Meanwhile, the communication with Armand Duka himself is suspected not to have been carried out by either of the two questioned individuals, but by another person. According to the version under investigation, the contacts with Duka were made through messages on the Signal app.
This complicates the picture of the case, as it suggests that the two young men may not necessarily have been at the center of the entire scheme, but part of a more limited link. However, this remains at the level of investigative suspicion and not a proven conclusion.
At this stage, what is clear is that the testimonies do not match and that the alleged scheme has more than one link. The official version still does not provide a full picture of the organization, the roles, and the person suspected of leading the main communication.
It is precisely these discrepancies that are expected to be crucial in understanding whether this was an improvised attempt or a more structured plan.