Investigative show Vetting | News24

From 2019 to the end of 2025, the Albanian government has issued 25 normative acts solely for amending the state budget. Normative acts are decisions that have immediate effect as law, without first passing through Parliament. The Constitution allows the Council of Ministers to use them as a tool only in exceptional cases, when the country cannot wait for a parliamentary debate. In these cases, the government can intervene immediately when something urgent happens, such as a crisis, disaster or the risk of paralyzing the state.

Research conducted by “Vetting” and analysis by fiscal and legal experts, based on the decisions of the Constitutional Court, reveal that normative acts have become a tool to channel funds to corrupt projects, which are now under investigation by SPAK. This research focuses on the way in which normative acts have been used, the role of the Minister of Finance and the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s firm.

Precedents set by the Constitutional Court
The Albanian government issues and approves the normative act according to the Constitution and the standards set by the Constitutional Court. In the reports on the normative acts or the acts themselves, you will find that they refer to Article 101 of the Constitution, based on two decisions by the Constitutional Court.

According to fiscal expert Eduart Gjokutaj, these decisions provide guidelines for the use of the act.

"The Constitutional Court has expressed itself in 2 cases, in 2006 and in 2014, regarding the normative acts drafted and approved, how they conflict with the relevant articles of the Constitution, regarding intervention in the budget bypassing the Parliament," expert Gjokutaj told "Vetting".

In decision no. 24, on 10 November 2006, the issue was directly related to the Albanian Power Corporation (KESH) and the risk of the country’s electricity supply being cut off. The problem was that KESH was in such a financial situation that it did not have a sufficient legal basis to ensure the continuation of electricity purchases, given the lack of production and unpaid debts.

The Albanian government of the time declared that without immediate legal intervention, the Corporation could not borrow, guarantee contracts or secure financing for the purchase of energy, which would lead to the inability to supply the country with electricity. The court would rule in favor of the government since the country was in a state of emergency and needed electricity.

Unlike the 2006 decision, in decision no. 23, on April 16, 2014, we would have a normative act that was directly related to the budget amendment by the government.

The Democratic Party would take the case to the Constitutional Court because the Rama 1 government, which is still in power today, would change the state budget by significantly increasing the public debt through a normative act. Even in this case, the Court would again rule in favor of the government because it had arguments for the need and urgency and because the normative act was subsequently approved by the Assembly, which fulfilled the control provided for by Article 101 of the Constitution.

Normative acts as an instrument for corruption affairs
In December 2022, the Albanian government would approve Normative Act No. 17, dated 1.12.2022, and Normative Act No. 19, dated 29.12.2022, for changes to the 2022 budget, relying on the claim of "need and urgency" while the Covid-19 emergency had long since been lifted.

These acts would be proposed by former Minister of Finance and Economy Delina Brahimaj and would be signed by Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku. The importance of these acts is related to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has allocated 5 billion lek or 50 million euros for payments for these projects, to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy, which she herself heads. For both of these projects, Balluku is under accusation by SPAK for abuse of office for pre-scheduling tenders. The majority is even delaying SPAK's request to lift Balluku's immunity with the aim of arresting him, passing the ball to the Constitutional Court.

According to the deputy leader of the "Mundësia" party, Erald Kapri, Balluk's case is a conspiracy against justice.

"It is clear that this is a battle to protect all the corrupt acts that have been committed all these years to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice. This is beyond question," said MP Kapri.

The vice-chairman of the "Mundësia" party, Kapri, added that the case of the deputy prime minister is an open conflict of interest, which is now being done to survive in power, for the great battle that Prime Minister Rama is having to save himself.

It is the reports on these projects that have given the first signals that normative acts by the Albanian government are being used without criteria and without real emergency or need.

From the analysis of the relationships, these changes are not related to an unexpected or emergency situation, but to the redistribution of funds, the technical closure of the fiscal year, and the financing of large infrastructure projects.

According to the leader of the "Albania Becomes" party, Adriatik Lapaj, the normative act is an exception to the rule.

"The use of a normative act for actions related to the governance of a country is inappropriate and is applied abusively," lawyer Lapaj told "Vetting".

The Supreme State Audit Office itself, in its audit of the Ministry of Finance and Economy for 2022, highlights that both normative acts were approved beyond the legal deadline for budget redistributions, which ends on November 15. Also, according to the audit, the reports of these acts do not contain detailed analyses of the changes, but only general summaries of the destination of the funds, which makes it unclear where the urgency that justifies the normative act lies.

Another problematic element identified by the SAI is the use and expansion of the Reserve Fund through these acts, emphasizing that the reserve fund was used for foreseeable expenses, contrary to the legal principle that this fund should serve only for unforeseen cases.

This context also includes the treatment of funds for large projects, including the Llogara tunnel. This project was financed in a climate of frequent budget changes, where decisions were made through normative acts at the end of the year, without a full parliamentary debate and without sufficient transparency on the real cost and financial performance.

According to fiscal expert Eduart Gjokutaj, the audit consistently highlights, both in terms of planning, but also in terms of the distribution of these funds, that the problem is systemic.

"This means that planning has problems in the way it is conceived and is influenced more by political decisions than by economic decisions and public interest," expert Gjokutaj told "Vetting".

Excessive use of EC and IMF acts against the government
From the beginning of 2023 to the end of 2025, the Albanian government and various ministers of economy, such as Delinda Ibrahimaj, Ervin Mete and the current minister Petrit Malaj, under the approval of Deputy Prime Minister Balluku, together with the Council of Ministers, would seal 9 normative acts. It should be emphasized that Albania was not in conditions of emergency and need, and this is clear from the weak arguments presented in the reports of the Ministry of Finance.

According to lawyer Adriatik Lapaj, correcting the state budget is a common practice.

"Part of the correction is done due to the changes that occur, but it is certainly not a healthy practice," Lapaj told "Vetting".

Normative Act No. 5, dated 18.10.2023 and Normative Act No. 6, dated 14.12.2023 are two consecutive interventions of the Council of Ministers in the 2023 budget law. Like the 2022 acts, both of these acts were adopted in the last period of the budget year with the aim of redistributing public funds, without changing the level of the deficit or public debt.

In accompanying reports and parliamentary reports, the urgency is argued with the approaching end of the financial year and the need to realize planned expenditures and not under extraordinary circumstances such as economic crisis, natural disaster or risk of administrative blockage.

"If we look at what the normative acts were used for, none or none of the acts presented meet the emergency condition. So, it seems that they were related to certain and dubious needs of the government, but never to resolve a specific situation," said MP Kapri.

According to the SAI report on the implementation of the 2023 State Budget, it is evident that the budget has been amended twice by normative acts and that a significant portion of the annual expenditures was realized in December, precisely after the approval of these acts.

In the same report, the audit emphasizes that the amendment to the budget law with these acts is not accompanied by an exhaustive explanation of the need and urgency that would justify avoiding Parliament.

Both acts have in common the fact that the reserve and contingency funds are being used more than necessary. These funds, which were originally created for unforeseen cases, have been used for expenses that were known in advance to occur.

However, as is evident from the analysis of the accompanying relations, their compatibility with Article 101 of the Constitution remains questionable.

The audit emphasizes that the frequent use of normative acts for budget amendments, especially at the end of the year, has also been noted by international institutions such as the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund, which have recommended limiting this practice.

According to expert Gjokutaj, the audit highlights the problem of improper distribution and expenditures, emphasizing that state budgets in recent years have tended to be clientelistic.

"Budgets are oriented towards certain predetermined sources and of course these also make a difference in the way they are changed", stated expert Gjokutaj, citing the audit report. Suspicions of violations are also found in subsequent acts in 2024, where in normative acts no. 1, no. 3 and no. 5 for the 2024 budget, together with parliamentary reports and reports, many elements emerge that show a repeated pattern of problematic use of the normative act, with strong signs of violation of the budgetary and constitutional legal framework.

All acts have in common the fact that they are formally based on Article 101 of the Constitution, declaring "need and urgency", but nowhere is there a word or sentence that describes the emergency or need.

In all cases, the reason remains the reallocation of funds, improvement of execution or support of social policies, elements that are predictable. This contradicts the standard established by the Constitutional Court, according to which the normative act is an exception and not a planning instrument.

According to the vice-chairman of the "Mundësia" party, Erald Kapri, if there were an emergency, the Albanian government would have taken measures for Oncology, but otherwise it is exploiting the act for dark interests.

"It has only cared about projects that it considered to be in its narrow political interests, as it is no longer about the development interests of Albania, but about interests in how to please a certain group of clients with the government so that they can then help the prime minister to continue in power," declared MP Kapri.

In all reports, a standard, almost identical language is observed, where the same expressions “positive performance”, “expectations by the end of the year”, “need for optimal budget implementation” are repeated. These documents lack alternative analysis and reasons why the Assembly could not convene and lack an assessment of the medium-term consequences. This makes the urgency formal and not real.

Normative act for startups without emergency and need
At the end of April 2025, the Ministry of Economy, Culture and Innovation, as the sole shareholder of the Albanian Investment Corporation under the leadership of Blendi Gonxha, would forward to the Ministry of Finance the project of the artificial intelligence startup “Thinking Machines Lab” where the Albanian state would invest 1 billion lek or no less than 10 million dollars. According to the report, under these conditions, the Ministry of Finance had prepared the first review of the 2025 budget, through normative act no. 3, dated 29.04.2025.

According to MP Kapri, the Albanian government no longer has any limits under the law.

"They have used the law and Parliament as a notary to do everything, despite the fact that everything has been corrupt from beginning to end. Why is this happening, that the government by law decides to give it to a single person, without competition, without anything?" the vice president of "Mundësia" would say about the startup "Thinking Machines Lab".

According to the statement of Minister Petrit Malaj, this project is part of the startup "Thinking Machines Lab" of one of the most successful Albanian-Americans Mira Murati. This is one of the most talked about companies of 2025 in the field of Artificial Intelligence and was founded by Murati, former director of OpenAI, after she left the creators of ChatGPT.

Minister Blendi Gonxhja would present the request as urgent because the deadline to enter the project expired in a few days, at the end of April 2025. Since this investment was not foreseen in the approved budget nor in the medium-term planning, Minister of Finance Petrit Malaj would prepare a solution through normative act no. 3, the first for 2025, after which 3 other acts on the budget would be signed, at the proposal of the Minister of Finance himself.

"The fund was granted to MEKI out of necessity in its capacity as the sole shareholder of the Albanian Investment Corporation to finance the Albanian government's participation in the startup "Thinking Machines Lab" with a value of no more than 10 million dollars and with a payment deadline of April 29, 2025, according to the request sent to us by the Ministry," Minister Malaj would declare on June 5, 2025 in Parliament.

From the statements of the Minister of Finance, but also in relation to the Normative Act, it is not clear what the Ministry's need is that made the proposal.

"I would like to clarify that the urgent implementation of this normative act came mainly from the fact that the project needed to be financed as soon as possible, in order to begin implementation and ensure the necessary benefits," the Minister of Finance would publicly state.

Minister Malaj's speech does not clearly define the two main elements according to the decisions of the Constitutional Court, necessity and urgency.

According to MP Erald Kapri, the Startup case is typical of how the Constitution and the decision of the Constitutional Court have been violated.

"On the one hand, the Constitutional Court, with its 2014 decision, has allowed the Albanian government to intervene with a normative act in the context of an emergency, but how long is this justified when we have a real emergency. If you want to make an investment as a government for a certain element, you can do it very well programmed in the budget, you have no emergency," said MP Kapri, criticizing the government's methods.

The money for the startup was created during 2025, as additional revenue from the administration and disposal of assets seized and confiscated by the state. This revenue is collected by the Agency for the Administration of Seized and Confiscated Assets and then transferred to the budget as non-tax revenue.

According to fiscal expert Eduart Gjokutaj, the specific case of budget allocation, using the Albanian Investment Corporation as a budgetary instrument, entails a deviation from the law.

"This brings about the total disregard of those elements mentioned in the organic budget law, and in general the way in which funds should be directed, avoiding the public procurement law, the law on strategic investments and general budgetary rules," said expert Gjokutaj.

This entire process passes through the Ministry of Finance, which drafts the normative act, determines the source of financing, formulates the justification for “need and urgency” and prepares the accompanying report. At this stage, the Minister of Finance Malaj bears the main legal responsibility for the content of the act, because he is the authority that guarantees compliance with the Constitution, especially with Article 101. If the urgency is not real and the budgetary intervention could have been made by ordinary law, the material responsibility for the misuse of the normative act falls on him.

Subsequently, the act proposed by the Ministry of Finance was submitted for approval by Deputy Prime Minister Balluku, who not only signed it, but also included it in the agenda of the Council of Ministers. At this stage, Deputy Prime Minister Balluku also bears responsibility, because she is the one who decides on the use of Article 101 of the Constitution and guarantees that the normative act is used only in real emergency conditions.

According to the Constitutional Court, "need and urgency" exist only when there is an extraordinary, unforeseen and dangerous situation for the public interest, which cannot wait even for expedited parliamentary procedures and which, if not addressed immediately, brings serious consequences for the state or citizens.

In the case of the normative act for the “Thinking Machines Lab”, the documents show that it is a planned investment, not an unforeseen emergency. There is no risk to the functioning of the state, there is no interruption of public services, there is no legal gap and there is no situation that would prevent the review by the Assembly even with an accelerated procedure. The only reason mentioned is the deadline set by the project itself, i.e. a contractual time limit and not a public risk.

The normative act was to be approved by Parliament, but documents from the Albanian Investment Corporation and the Ministry of Finance reveal a discrepancy between the financial transfers. According to the published act, the Albanian government has approved 1 billion lek, not 10 million dollars. We need to clarify this because 1 billion lek is converted into 11.53 million dollars according to the exchange rate of the Bank of Albania on the day the fund was transferred to the Corporation on April 29, 2025.

On the other hand, according to the decision of the General Assembly of the Corporation, by decision no. 43, dated April 30, 2025, according to the normative act, 867,2 million lek were transferred to it, equal to 10 million dollars according to the exchange rate of the Bank of Albania.

As we mentioned above, officially the Albanian government has transferred 1 billion lek and not 10 million dollars.

Meanwhile, it is unknown where 132 million lek or 1.4 million euros went.

"Vetting" launched a request for comment from "Thinking Machines Lab" to clarify the investments by the Albanian government and how the funds had been spent, but by the time of publication of this material there was no reaction.

"Vetting" made a request for information to the Albanian Investment Corporation about the startup, which company was used to transfer the fund, who the owners are, but until the publication of this material, it did not receive any information.

Conflicts of interest and concealment of assets by Minister Petrit Malaj
In 2025 alone, Minister of Finance Petrit Malaj would draft and propose 4 normative acts to amend the state budget, the highest number since 2021 when the country was under emergency conditions of natural disasters, while last year there were neither emergencies nor urgent needs.

It should be noted that a few days after the normative act for the startup, on May 6, 2025, the Democratic Party would denounce Minister Petrit Malaj to the Election Commission due to this act because he had changed the state budget during the election campaign in violation of the electoral code. But the Democratic Party has previously denounced Minister Malaj for his connections with auditing companies owned by his family members.

The appointment of Petrit Malaj as Minister of Finance would raise questions about his role and conflict of interest with the position because, according to official documents, his relatives are found to have private auditing companies during his period as Minister of Finance.

The existence of economic interests of his family members in private auditing companies creates a direct link between the family interest and the minister's area of ​​public responsibility.

From the analysis of the documents of the High Inspectorate for Declaration and Control of Assets and Conflict of Interest, provided by "Open Spending Albania", the AIS platform, and from the financial balance sheets, a documented discrepancy results between the economic activity of Petrit Malaj as a Natural Person, the company "PBM" where he was a shareholder, and the way in which these activities are reflected in the declarations to the HIDAKKI.

According to extracts and financial statements from the National Business Center, Petrit Malaj owned a business as a Natural Person from 2016 for financial consulting services until 2024 when he deregistered. Official balance sheets show that this business has been functional and profitable for several consecutive years, at least until December 2024.

In 2017, the business generated over 7.6 million lek in revenue from services and over 5.4 million lek in profit. In 2022, revenue from services amounted to over 7.6 million lek, while profit after tax amounted to around 5.8 million lek, of which the vast majority was withdrawn by the owner. Even in 2023, according to the explanatory notes to the financial statements, the business generated around 7.6 million lek in revenue and over 5.3 million lek in profit. These data indicate an activity with real financial benefit for the owner. On the other hand, in the HIDAKKI documents, in the declaration before starting the task, the activity as a Natural Person is not declared, the NIPT is not identified and the annual income or profits from this business are not reflected.
The declarations show several bank statements, which are marked with the source "business income", but without specifying the company that generated them, without the annual amount of income and without a direct connection to the official balance sheets from the Central Bank. Therefore, these documents show that Minister Malaj has had an active profitable business for several years, with considerable income and profits, while this data is not reflected in the declarations of private interests at the HIDAKKI.

According to the chairman of "Albania Becomes" Lapaj, if there is concealment of assets, we are committing a criminal offense.

"Article 257/a defines the case exactly when you do not make the declaration. It says it in the second paragraph, it says exactly that. So, when you intentionally conceal it. So I judge that we are within the limits of that article. In cases where concealment occurs, we are in the conditions of a criminal offense," said lawyer Lapaj.

But Minister Malaj was a founder and shareholder of the company "PBM" shpk, which belonged to his family members, who in December 2025 transferred the shares to a passive status.

From official sources it results that Minister Malaj has not declared the profits he has had from this company to the HIDAKKI since until 2019 he was a shareholder, a period in which he sold the shares to his family members. The Law on the Declaration and Control of Assets, Financial Liabilities of Elected Officials and Some Public Servants obliges him to declare all these profits. It should be noted that the company "PBM" shpk has had many profits in previous years, which obliges the minister to declare these assets.

According to lawyer Lapaj, the declaration form must be completed according to the relevant law.

"If the form is not completed according to legal provisions, it is subject to administrative liability for failure to declare, in cases where the law determines it, and to criminal liability, according to Article 257, letter a, of the Criminal Code, for the failure to declare according to a special law," said lawyer Lapaj.

The minister's relatives own two auditing companies, "BDO ALBANIA" shpk and "PBM" shpk, where in the first company they are shareholders together with a citizen and a foreign company.

Since Petrit Malaj's parents and relatives own or are involved in private auditing companies, a conflict of interest situation is created under the law on the prevention of conflicts of interest. Although the law does not automatically prohibit the exercise of public office because of the private companies of family members, it considers these individuals as related persons, whose private interests must be declared and managed with increased care.

According to MP Erald Kapri, this case should be verified by the Special Prosecution Office.

"I strongly hope that there will be an investigation by SPAK and that it will reveal whether there is a clear conflict of interest of the current Minister of Finance and all the interests he may have had," declared MP Kapri.

The Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest provides that a conflict exists not only when there is direct benefit, but also when the perception is created that public decision-making may be influenced by the private interests of related persons.

In December 2025, Minister Malaj's family members transferred the shares to a passive state to avoid a conflict of interest, while the minister had been in office since August 2024. Therefore, the transfer of the shares to a passive state was made after more than a year, indicating that a conflict of interest existed.

"Vetting" contacted the High Inspectorate for Declaration and Control of Assets and Conflict of Interests for the reasons why it has not taken measures against Minister Malaj, who is found to have family ties with an auditing company. At the end of the request, "Vetting" requested a copy of the measures that will be taken in this case from the institution, which has become a bunker for public transparency.

For more than a year, Chief Inspector Evgjeni Bashari and HIDACCI Secretary General Arbër Basholli have not provided information about "Vetting" for senior public officials and have not been transparent about the measures taken against these officials.