Another case involving missing public money is passing through the justice system, this time at the Albanian Post branch in Durrës. The court ordered “arrest in prison” for former director Elisabeta Mataj, while it imposed “house arrest” on former finance chief Valbona Duni and cashier Paola Dana, in a case where the parties’ versions clash sharply and where the chain of responsibility itself remains in doubt.
What prosecutors claim about the 69 million lek
According to the prosecution, monetary transfers were carried out in April and May in violation of regulations, without the mandatory physical security escort. Prosecutors claim that about 69 million lek left the central cash office without being recorded as incoming funds at the Shijak and Krujë branches.
At the hearing on security measures, the prosecution also spoke of suspected forged payment orders and attributed the misappropriation of the amount to former director Mataj. This version was contested by the defense and by the suspect herself.
Casinos, video footage and the debate over private life
One of the elements prosecutors brought into the courtroom was Mataj’s and her husband’s casino attendance. According to the prosecution, the former director is recorded as having entered casinos in Tirana 335 times, including 27 entries during the April-May period, when according to the case file the 69 million lek went missing. For her husband, prosecutors referred to 340 entries in recent months.
By order of the prosecutor, video footage was also obtained of entrances and exits at two casinos in Tirana. The defense considered this an infringement of privacy and disputed the link the prosecution is trying to build between these data and the Post Office case.
After the hearing, Mataj’s husband said they have been frequenting casinos for eight years and that, according to him, this has no connection to the investigation into the missing funds.
Defense: the evidence is incomplete and warnings were ignored
Mataj’s lawyer requested a lighter security measure, arguing that there is no risk of flight and that her client is the mother of six children. She also challenged the prosecution’s claim that Mataj had left Albania to evade justice, explaining that her entry had been made through Morina, a crossing point which, according to the defense, is not registered in the TIMS system because of agreements with Kosovo.
The defense also requested the merger of the criminal proceedings and the admission of all video footage, arguing that not all of the evidence allegedly in Mataj’s favor has been included in the file, which according to the lawyer undermines equality between the parties in the process.
Documents were also presented in favor of the former director which, according to her lawyers, show that she had raised concerns since March about problems in the finance sector. According to the defense, Mataj had requested inspections, restrictions on access to the cash office and disciplinary measures, but the General Directorate had not responded as it should have.
Mutual accusations between the suspects and three criminal complaints
On the other hand, former finance chief Valbona Duni stated that the money was taken from her office by the director and was never returned. Cashier Paola Dana has denied receiving any amount and said that actions at the Post Office were carried out only on the director’s orders.
Three criminal complaints have been registered in this case file: one by the Post Office against all three women, one by Valbona Duni against Elisabeta Mataj, and one by Mataj herself against Duni and Dana. According to the material presented in court, these complaints are expected to be merged into a single proceeding by the prosecution.
The court’s decision on the security measures does not answer any of the main questions in this story: how the money left the cash office, who had real control over the funds, and whether internal warnings were neglected by the management structures.
At this stage, the prosecution’s claims and the defense’s objections remain to be verified in the investigation and later at trial, in a case that affects trust in the administration of public money.