Another case involving public money and suspicions of private gain has come into SPAK’s focus. The Special Prosecution says it is investigating a suspected scheme in which the award of a major public tender is linked to investments in a villa in Palasë that, according to investigators’ version, effectively belongs to Belinda Balluku.
What SPAK claims
According to SPAK, the investigation has uncovered details that raise suspicions of a favorable relationship between the minister and a company that took part in an important public procurement procedure.
Prosecutors claim that Arbër Abazi, owner of the company “Alko Impex General Construction,” undertook investments to complete a villa in the “Green Coast” complex in Palasë. The value of these works, according to the cost estimate mentioned in the case file, ranges from about 288,000 to 410,000 euros.
The link to the Ring Road Lot 7 tender
Also at the center of the suspicions is Lot 7 of Tirana’s Outer Ring Road, a contract with a limit fund of about 2.35 billion lek excluding VAT.
According to the investigation, Abazi’s company was part of the consortium of economic operators that won this tender. SPAK suspects that favoritism in the procurement procedure was not separate from the alleged benefits tied to the property in Palasë.
Suspicions regarding Balluku
According to SPAK’s official version, Belinda Balluku is suspected of having favored the company during the tender procedure in her capacity as Minister of Infrastructure and Energy.
In return, prosecutors suspect that she benefited from the investments made in the villa. This is the essence of the episode that has once again called into question the way public contracts are managed and the boundary between state decision-making and private interest.
Criminal offenses and stage of the investigation
In this case, SPAK has raised suspicions against Balluku of passive corruption, concealment of assets, and money laundering.
The investigation remains ongoing, and these are the Prosecution’s allegations at this stage of the proceedings, not a final court ruling.
The case brings renewed attention to a recurring problem in relations between power and business: when public tenders and private investments appear on the same line, the burden of proving legality falls on the investigative institutions and the justice system.
Beyond the specific names involved, the case touches on a sensitive nerve in the management of public money, where every suspicion of favoritism requires not only a criminal investigation, but also transparency that has often been lacking until now.