VZCZCXRO9028
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHTI #0059/01 0231420
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 231420Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY TIRANA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6588
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 TIRANA 000059 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SCE 
DOJ FOR OPDAT 
 
E.O. 12958:N/A 
TAGS: KTFN PTER PREL AL
SUBJECT:  First Criminal Terrorism Finance Case Hits Albanian 
Courts 
 
¶1.  (U)  SUMMARY:  In December 2007, Hamzeh Abu Rayyan, the 
administrator for UN 1267 designated terrorist financier Yassin 
al-Qadi, was criminally charged with hiding funds used to finance 
terror.  This marks the first time that an individual has been 
charged with terrorism financing in Albania.  After a lengthy 
process, which included alleged attempted corruption of 
investigators and prosecutors, the case is now before a five-member 
panel of judges in the First Instance Court for Serious Crimes.  The 
first hearing of the trial was held on January 14, 2008.  The 
successful prosecution of this case will go a long way in 
establishing a legal precedent against terrorism financing in 
Albania.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (U)  The case began in September 2006, when investigators 
working for the Serious Crimes Prosecution Office (SCPO) in Albania 
began a criminal investigation of Hamzeh Abu Rayyan, a Jordanian 
citizen living in Tirana, Albania.  The SCPO investigated Rayyan for 
1) financing of terrorism (art. 230/a of the Criminal Code) and 2) 
hiding/concealing of funds and other wealth/goods that finance 
terrorism (art. 230/b of the Criminal Code).  Abu Rayyan is the 
administrator of "Loxhall sh.p.k", an Albanian company established 
in 1993 and owned by Yassin al-Qadi.  Loxhall owns 19 immovable 
properties in Tirana that are rented to individuals and companies. 
The Loxhall company, along with the properties it owned, were seized 
pursuant to order No. 02, dated 02.12.2004, of the Minister of 
Finance based on ownership by al-Qadi and his UN 1267 designation as 
a terrorist financier. 
 
¶3.  (U)  The investigation revealed that, although Loxhall and its 
properties were under seizure, Abu Rayyan continued the activity of 
the company and concealed 10,089,604 leke (around $123,000) from 
Albanian authorities.  Prosecutors were not able to build a 
sufficient case for charges of financing of terrorism under 230/a, 
but were able to file under 230/b.  On December 24, 2007, 
prosecutors filed charges with the First Instance Court for Serious 
Crimes on hiding/concealing of funds and other wealth/goods that 
finance terrorism. 
 
¶4.  (U)  The investigation also revealed that the Agency for the 
Administration of Sequestered and Confiscated Assets (AASCA) failed 
to exercise its duty of administering the seized properties.  It was 
also discovered that the Tirana Tax Department continued to collect 
taxes from "Loxhall sh.p.k" after its seizure, which was improper 
because Loxhall was banned from business activity due to the seizure 
order.  For this reason, the Serious Crimes Prosecutor's Office also 
referred a case against AASCA and the Tirana Tax Department to the 
Joint Investigative Unit against Economic Crime and Corruption on 
the charges of abuse of office. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  Some developments in the case raise concern about its 
final outcome.  According to a judicial police officer assigned to 
the investigation of the case, she, the prosecutor and the head of 
the office were pressured by the defendant during the investigation 
to dismiss it and were offered bribes through their relatives and 
close friends to dismiss the case.  Additionally, at the beginning 
of the investigation in 2006, the Serious Crimes Court ordered Abu 
Rayyan to surrender his passport and refrain from leaving Albania. 
In December 2007, in spite of strong opposition from the prosecutor, 
the court returned Abu Rayyan's passport to him and ordered him to 
report regularly to the police.  Abu Rayyan is now in possession of 
his passport and can leave the country at any time.  The Prosecutor 
has appealed this decision, but no decision has been reached on the 
appeal. 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  Before the case was sent to trial, a prosecutor from the 
General Prosecutor's Office and the lead prosecutor in the case, 
Julin Papa, suggested that it should be completely dismissed.  SCPO 
leadership supported moving the case forward because the 
investigation was complete and there was enough evidence to bring 
the case to trial.  The two sides did not reach a consensus at two 
consecutive meetings.  The leadership of the Serious Crimes 
Prosecution Office then sought a written opinion from the General 
Prosecutor's Office regarding filing the case with the court.  At 
that point, in the written reply, the General Prosecutor's Office 
formally agreed that the case should be filed in court.  (Note:  The 
lead prosecutor has since performed professionally in court.) 
 
¶7. (U)  On January 14, 2008, the First Instance Court for Serious 
Crimes began the criminal trial against Abu Rayyan.  Abu Rayyan was 
represented by defense counsels Saimir Vishaj and Liljana Ruli.  The 
court panel was composed of Sander Simoni, presiding judge, Eva 
Dede, Nertina Kosova, Dritan Hallunaj, and Gurali Brahimllari. 
Several journalists from major TV stations and newspapers followed 
the hearing.  Before the trial began, defense counsels explained 
that Abu Rayyan required a translator during the hearings.  As a 
preliminary request, the defense asked for all procedural actions 
performed during the preliminary investigation to be excluded from 
 
TIRANA 00000059  002 OF 002 
 
 
evidence because the fundamental right to free translation for 
foreign citizens had been violated by the prosecution.  The 
prosecutor argued that, during the investigation, Abu Rayyan was 
notified of the right to translation, and in the presence of his 
lawyer, Abu Rayyan declared that he understood and spoke Albanian 
and did not need a translator.  The court continued the trial until 
January 16 to allow time for consideration of the defense request. 
 
¶8. (U) On January 16, the court rejected the preliminary request of 
the defense.  The Court found that Abu Rayyan had declared in the 
presence of his attorney that he understood and spoke Albanian, and 
neither he nor his attorney requested translation. The defense 
repeated the request to exclude from evidence all procedural actions 
performed during the preliminary investigation, and also made two 
new claims: 1) that the prosecutor did not allow the defendant to 
become familiar with the file, and 2) that he was not officially 
notified of the charges filed in court.  The Court rejected all 
three claims.  The defense then declared that the Court was clearly 
favoring the prosecution and the fate of the trial was already 
decided.  The defendant and the attorneys declared that they would 
not further participate in the "clearly biased trial" and left the 
courtroom.   The Court decided to continue the trial in absentia of 
the defendant (allowed under Albanian law), and postponed it until 
January 29 in order to assign a state-paid attorney to him.  In the 
meantime, the Court indicated that it will inform the National 
Chamber of Advocates and ask for disciplinary action against the two 
attorneys for abandonment of the defense.  (Note:  The National 
Chamber of Advocates rarely, if ever, imposes disciplinary action 
against attorneys.) 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  COMMENT:  Albania has an aggressive history of freezing 
and sequestering assets related to terror financing, and the Abu 
Rayyan case is important as it will demonstrate whether Albania has 
the capability to take the next step and prosecute a case of 
international importance against terrorist financiers.  The ongoing 
inability of AASCA to properly administer seized terror finance 
assets and the lack of capable enforcement of tax laws hampered the 
investigation and may have a damaging impact on the overall criminal 
prosecution of Abu Rayyan.  However, the Serious Crimes Prosecution 
Office appears to have done an admirable job of investigating the 
case and vigorously advocating for its advancement, even in the face 
of troubling opposition from fellow prosecutors.  Likewise, the 
Serious Crimes Court has thus far handled the case professionally. 
We will continue to monitor this case closely throughout the trial. 
 
WITHERS