#statutor

[cacafirm]

Statutory Audit Requirements for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) with Expert Insights from CAnest CA Firm

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of many economies around the world. In their pursuit of growth and financial stability, SMEs often navigate a complex web of regulations and financial responsibilities. One such responsibility is the statutory audit, a critical process that ensures financial transparency and accountability. In this article, we'll explore the statutory audit requirements for SMEs, with expert insights from the experienced professionals at CAnest CA Firm.

Understanding Statutory Audits for SMEs

A statutory audit is an independent examination of a company's financial statements and accounts. Its primary goal is to provide assurance to stakeholders that the financial information is accurate and reliable. While statutory audits are commonly associated with large corporations, SMEs are not exempt from these requirements.

CAnest CA Firm, a renowned name in the world of auditing, explains that the need for statutory audits in SMEs stems from various factors:

1. Legal Mandate: In many countries, the law mandates that SMEs conduct an annual statutory audit if they meet specific criteria, such as meeting certain revenue or asset thresholds.

2. Stakeholder Assurance: Statutory audits provide confidence to stakeholders, including investors, creditors, and even potential partners, about the financial health of the SME.

3. Tax Compliance: An audited financial statement can simplify the tax filing process and help SMEs avoid potential tax-related issues.

4. Access to Finance: Many financial institutions require audited financial statements as a prerequisite for loans or credit lines.

Criteria for Statutory Audits in SMEs

The specific criteria for statutory audits in SMEs can vary from one jurisdiction to another, but common thresholds include:

- Revenue: Typically, SMEs with revenues exceeding a certain amount (e.g., $1 million) are required to undergo a statutory audit.

- Total Assets: In some cases, the value of a company's assets may trigger the need for an audit.

- Number of Employees: The size of the workforce can also influence audit requirements.

CAnest CA Firm emphasizes that it's crucial for SMEs to understand the legal and regulatory requirements in their specific jurisdiction, as non-compliance can result in fines and penalties.

The Role of CAnest CA Firm in SME Statutory Audits

CAnest CA Firm has a strong track record of assisting SMEs in meeting their statutory audit requirements efficiently. The firm's team of experienced auditors and financial experts provides several key services to SMEs:

1. Audit Planning: CAnest CA Firm customizes audit plans based on the unique needs and risks of each SME, ensuring a cost-effective and thorough process.

2. Risk Assessment: Their experts assess the financial risks that SMEs face and develop strategies to mitigate them.

3. Compliance Guidance: CAnest CA Firm stays up to date with changing regulations, ensuring SMEs remain compliant with all statutory audit requirements.

4. Business Insights: Beyond compliance, CAnest CA Firm leverages audit data to provide valuable insights that can help SMEs make informed financial decisions.

For SMEs, statutory audits are not just a regulatory burden; they are an opportunity to demonstrate financial integrity and gain the trust of stakeholders. CAnest CA Firm, with its expertise and commitment to serving SMEs, is a valuable ally in navigating the complex landscape of statutory audit requirements. SMEs should proactively engage with professionals like CAnest CA Firm to ensure compliance, foster growth, and secure their financial future.

As a business owner or financial professional, understanding these requirements is essential to thrive in a competitive market. Consult with experts like those at CAnest CA Firm to ensure your SME meets its statutory audit obligations while reaping the benefits of financial transparency and accountability.

[aktualitet-al]

Skandal Te “Urdhri I Psikologut”: Valbona Treska Refuzon Të Lirojë Zyrën, Institucioni Jashtë Shërbimit

Brunilda Laboviti denoncon uzurpimin: “U mbyll dera për psikologët, do e çoj në gjykatë” Një situatë absurde po ndodh në një nga institucionet më delikate të vendit – Urdhri i Psikologut është praktikisht jashtë funksionit, pasi zyra është e mbyllur, ndërkohë që presidentja e zgjedhur, Brunilda Laboviti, nuk po arrin të marrë detyrën. Shkak është refuzimi i Valbona Treskës, ish-kryetare me…

[thellawtoknow]

Petty Theft in Criminal Law: A Legal and Social Analysis

I. Definition and Legal Elements1. Unlawful Taking (Actus Reus – The Physical Act) 2. Asportation (Movement of Property) 3. Intent to Permanently Deprive (Mens Rea – The Mental Element) 4. Ownership of the Property 5. Value Below the Statutory Threshold Legal Consequences of Failing to Prove an Element II. Petty Theft vs. Grand Theft: A Matter of Degree1. Legal Thresholds and Judicial Efficiency 2. Proportionality and Punishment 3. The Problem of Arbitrary Lines and Distributive Inequality 4. The Socioeconomic Context of the Offender 5. Reform and Reconsideration IV. Punishment and Legal Consequences1. Classification and Statutory Penalties 2. Diversion Programs and Restorative Justice 3. Enhanced Penalties and Recidivism 4. Collateral Consequences and Social Stigma 5. A Philosophical and Policy-Oriented Reflection Petty Theft in Criminal Law: A Legal and Social Analysis Petty theft, often considered one of the most minor offenses within the broader framework of criminal law, nonetheless occupies a significant position within legal systems due to its prevalence and implications for justice, deterrence, and social cohesion. At its core, petty theft pertains to the unlawful taking of property belonging to another, with the value of the stolen item(s) falling below a certain monetary threshold defined by statute. Despite its classification as a misdemeanor in many jurisdictions, petty theft raises profound legal and ethical questions regarding property, punishment, and social inequality. This essay examines the definition, elements, and variations of petty theft within criminal law, and explores its broader implications in jurisprudence, legal philosophy, and society. I. Definition and Legal Elements Petty theft, or “petit theft,” functions as a subset of larceny within criminal law, characterized by its limited economic impact but nonetheless grounded in the fundamental legal principle of protecting individual property rights. Its definition and the elements required for conviction reflect the confluence of statutory clarity, common law heritage, and the conceptual pillars of actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). While minor in monetary scale, the legal architecture surrounding petty theft is sophisticated, as it seeks to delineate moral wrongdoing from mere mistake, borrowing, or civil debt. Let us now delve deeper into the specific elements required for a successful prosecution, each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 1. Unlawful Taking (Actus Reus – The Physical Act) The first and most visible component is the unauthorized taking of property. This entails that the defendant acted without the permission, consent, or legal authority of the owner. It may occur openly or covertly, with or without confrontation. The unlawfulness of the act distinguishes theft from other similar conduct, such as borrowing (with intent to return) or reclaiming one’s own property (mistakenly believed to be in another’s possession). The law thus focuses on the violative nature of the act — it is not merely the acquisition of the object, but the transgression of ownership rights that constitutes the crime. In cases involving ambiguity (e.g., shared property or mistaken identity of ownership), courts closely scrutinize the factual matrix to determine whether the act can genuinely be characterized as "unlawful." 2. Asportation (Movement of Property) Asportation, a term inherited from common law tradition, refers to the actual movement of the stolen item, however minimal. Jurisprudence has firmly established that even the slightest displacement — picking up a ring and moving it one inch — satisfies this requirement. This element distinguishes theft from attempted theft. The physical separation of the item from its place of lawful control symbolizes the initiation of dominion by the offender, a symbolic act of defiance against rightful ownership. In contemporary statutory formulations, some jurisdictions do not use the term “asportation” explicitly but still require proof of movement or exertion of control that deprives the owner of possession. 3. Intent to Permanently Deprive (Mens Rea – The Mental Element) The doctrine of mens rea is at the core of criminal liability. In the context of petty theft, the accused must harbor the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. This requirement is what separates theft from accidental taking or temporary borrowing. The prosecution must show that, at the time of taking, the defendant did not plan to return the item or was indifferent to its return. Courts often infer intent from circumstances — concealing items, fleeing with goods, altering or reselling stolen property, or statements made by the defendant. However, absence of this intent (e.g., temporary use with intent to return) may negate liability, potentially reducing the case to civil trespass or unauthorized use. Intent also excludes instances where a person mistakenly believes the property is theirs — a claim of right defense — thereby eliminating criminal culpability due to the absence of dishonest intent. 4. Ownership of the Property The item in question must legally belong to another person, entity, or institution. This element reaffirms that theft is fundamentally a relational offense — it violates not just a rule, but a social and legal relationship of ownership. This becomes legally significant when dealing with lost or abandoned property, joint property, employer-employee relations, and family members. For instance, taking a spouse’s item during divorce proceedings might not meet the theft threshold depending on the jurisdiction’s view on shared ownership. Ownership must be proven, typically through documentation, testimony, or circumstantial evidence. Where ownership is ambiguous, such as in communal living or shared enterprises, courts may lean on equity and reasonable expectations of privacy and control. 5. Value Below the Statutory Threshold The hallmark of petty theft is that the value of the appropriated item falls below a legislatively defined monetary cap. This value often includes fair market valuation at the time and place of the theft, rather than original purchase price or subjective worth. This distinction is vital not only for grading the offense (misdemeanor vs. felony) but for ensuring proportionality in sentencing — a foundational principle in criminal law. For example, stealing a mobile phone worth $300 may qualify as petty theft, whereas taking a designer bag worth $2,000 would be prosecuted as grand theft. Value may be aggregated if multiple items are taken in a single act or over a continuing course of conduct — a matter often determined by statutory rules or judicial interpretation. Where disputes arise, courts may require expert testimony or retail assessments to establish accurate valuation. Legal Consequences of Failing to Prove an Element Because criminal trials operate under the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, failure to sufficiently demonstrate any of the above elements results in acquittal or reduction of charges. For instance: - If intent is not established, the act might be reclassified as civil conversion. - If value exceeds the limit, the case may be refiled as felony theft. - If asportation is not proven, the charge may fall to attempted theft. - If ownership cannot be demonstrated, it may lead to dismissal for lack of standing. This rigorous evidentiary requirement protects the rights of the accused and ensures the moral legitimacy of criminal adjudication. The elements of petty theft, though seemingly straightforward, reveal the nuanced and layered nature of criminal liability. Each element demands precise factual analysis and evidentiary substantiation, reflecting the broader legal commitment to safeguarding due process, protecting individual rights, and upholding societal norms of property respect. Petty theft is not merely a question of small-scale misappropriation — it is a crystallization of legal doctrines around ownership, consent, culpability, and proportionality. The attention paid to even its most technical aspects demonstrates the law’s aspiration to be not only orderly but just, even in cases that may appear minor at first glance. II. Petty Theft vs. Grand Theft: A Matter of Degree The delineation between petty theft and grand theft serves as one of the clearest examples of the criminal law's effort to calibrate its response to varying degrees of harm. While both offenses share the same foundational elements — the unlawful taking of another’s property with intent to permanently deprive — the legal system introduces a scalar distinction based largely on value, drawing a line between misdemeanors and felonies. This line is not merely procedural; it reflects deeper principles embedded within modern legal philosophy, including proportionality, distributive justice, and deterrence. Yet, as we will explore, the reliance on economic value as the central metric introduces challenges, both practical and ethical, particularly when the lived realities of victims and offenders are brought into view. 1. Legal Thresholds and Judicial Efficiency In most jurisdictions, the value threshold separating petty theft from grand theft is set by statute. For example: - In California, grand theft involves property valued over $950 (Cal. Penal Code § 487). - In New York, the threshold is $1,000 (N.Y. Penal Law § 155.30). - In some jurisdictions, thresholds may be as low as $250 or as high as $2,500, depending on legislative policy and inflation adjustments. This threshold simplifies legal processing. Misdemeanor charges (petty theft) are handled more quickly, with limited procedural complexity and lower maximum penalties. Felonies (grand theft), by contrast, trigger more extensive legal safeguards and longer potential sentences. This division allows courts to allocate resources efficiently and treat crimes of greater economic magnitude with greater severity. Yet, this administrative convenience should not obscure the moral and social stakes involved in assigning gradations to criminal conduct. 2. Proportionality and Punishment The distinction embodies the principle of proportionality, a bedrock of modern criminal justice. Rooted in both classical liberalism and Enlightenment-era reformist theory (e.g., Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham), this principle holds that the severity of punishment must be commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. Theft of a car, a high-value piece of jewelry, or a large sum of money constitutes a greater disruption to property order and implies a greater threat to societal stability than the theft of a loaf of bread or a pair of shoes. The law thus communicates its moral disapproval not only through the fact of punishment but through its degree, making value-based thresholds a proxy for moral gravity. However, this structure becomes problematic when it prioritizes economic magnitude over human impact. 3. The Problem of Arbitrary Lines and Distributive Inequality Critics of value-based distinctions in theft law have long pointed to their arbitrary and sometimes unjust consequences. The theft of an item worth $949 is, in legal terms, materially different from one worth $951, even if both acts are carried out under identical circumstances by the same individual. This can result in significant differences in sentencing, employment consequences, and social stigma, despite the negligible material distinction. Moreover, such distinctions often ignore the subjective impact of theft on victims. For a working-class individual, the theft of a bicycle valued at $300 may result in loss of employment and serious economic instability. For a wealthy individual, the loss of a $1,200 handbag may be of trivial consequence. The criminal law’s reliance on market value thus risks abstracting justice from human experience, applying a metric of harm that may lack resonance in concrete social realities. This raises a question that is both philosophical and political: Should justice be blind to socioeconomic context, or must it adapt to reflect it? 4. The Socioeconomic Context of the Offender On the other side of the equation lies the circumstantial reality of the offender, particularly in cases of petty theft. Individuals who steal inexpensive items — often food, clothing, or small electronics — may do so not out of malicious intent, but out of desperation. In such cases, the rigid application of theft statutes, even with value thresholds, can lead to disproportionate and counterproductive consequences, including incarceration, loss of employment, and further marginalization. Modern legal systems have partially responded to this critique through mechanisms such as: - Diversion programs for first-time or low-risk offenders; - Restorative justice practices, where offenders directly address harm with victims; - Judicial discretion in sentencing, allowing judges to mitigate punishment based on context. Nonetheless, the persistence of mandatory minimums, three-strikes laws, and other sentencing frameworks means that value thresholds continue to carry significant legal weight, sometimes leading to cumulative injustices for repeat petty offenders. 5. Reform and Reconsideration Recent legal reforms in several jurisdictions have raised the threshold for grand theft to account for inflation and reduce the number of low-level offenders entering the penal system. For instance, California’s Proposition 47 (2014) reclassified certain nonviolent theft offenses under $950 as misdemeanors, seeking to reduce prison overcrowding and focus resources on violent crime. However, such reforms are not without controversy. Retail groups and law enforcement agencies argue that raising thresholds has led to increased retail theft, emboldened by lower penalties. This tension reflects an ongoing public debate between punitive and rehabilitative visions of criminal justice, one that challenges society to define not only what it values, but how it values. The distinction between petty and grand theft is more than a technical division; it is a reflection of how the law conceptualizes harm, assigns culpability, and prioritizes the efficient use of its own mechanisms. While rooted in logical aims of proportionality and judicial pragmatism, the reliance on objective value as the sole differentiator can obscure deeper moral and social truths. The challenge for contemporary criminal law is to maintain the structural clarity that such distinctions afford while evolving toward a more context-sensitive, human-centered, and morally coherent system of justice. To do so would require not only legislative reform but a rethinking of the assumptions that underpin our treatment of crime — particularly those as emblematic and ancient as theft. III. Philosophical and Ethical Dimensions From a legal-philosophical perspective, petty theft challenges the understanding of justice and property rights. Classical theorists like John Locke emphasized the sanctity of property as an extension of one's labor and identity. In this view, even minor theft constitutes a moral wrong that destabilizes social order and merits retributive justice. Yet, modern critiques, especially from Marxist and critical legal theories, argue that criminalizing petty theft without accounting for structural inequalities risks perpetuating injustice. Petty theft is often committed by individuals in economically vulnerable positions. To punish them without addressing the root causes — poverty, unemployment, homelessness — may serve merely to reinforce a punitive state mechanism rather than achieve genuine justice. In utilitarian terms, the aim of deterring future offenses must be balanced against the cost of enforcement and incarceration. Petty theft cases consume judicial resources and may result in penalties (such as jail time) that exacerbate the offender’s marginalization rather than rehabilitate them or restore justice. IV. Punishment and Legal Consequences Petty theft, though classified as a minor crime in most legal systems, carries a suite of consequences that can reach far beyond the courtroom. The principle of lex talionis — that punishment should mirror the gravity of the crime — ostensibly guides sentencing in these cases. Yet the legal and extralegal repercussions of petty theft reveal a more complex reality, one in which the punishment often extends well beyond the immediate offense, particularly in contexts marked by poverty, social vulnerability, and systemic inequality. 1. Classification and Statutory Penalties In the majority of jurisdictions, petty theft is classified as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. This classification reflects the lower economic value of the stolen property and the generally nonviolent nature of the offense. Nonetheless, a misdemeanor is still a criminal charge and is recorded as such. Typical legal consequences include: - Monetary Fines: Courts may impose fines, often ranging from $100 to $1,000, depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances. In cases involving low-income defendants, even modest fines can be burdensome and may lead to cycles of nonpayment and further legal complications. - Community Service: A common alternative to incarceration, community service requires the offender to perform unpaid work for a designated number of hours, typically benefiting public institutions or charities. While restorative in intent, it may become punitive when enforced without consideration of the offender’s schedule or physical ability. - Probation: Offenders may be placed under supervised release, required to adhere to specific conditions such as attending counseling, remaining employed, and avoiding further legal trouble. Violations may result in incarceration. - Incarceration: Though less common for first-time offenses, petty theft can result in short-term imprisonment, usually not exceeding one year, often served in county jail rather than state prison. This form of punishment is controversial given the minimal threat posed by most petty theft offenders. 2. Diversion Programs and Restorative Justice Recognizing the disproportionate consequences of traditional punishment, many legal systems have developed diversion programs for first-time or low-risk offenders. These programs are rooted in principles of rehabilitation and restorative justice, seeking to resolve the offense without invoking the full machinery of criminal prosecution. Typical features include: - Participation in educational or theft-awareness courses. - Restitution to the victim. - Counseling and social services support. Successful completion of such programs may result in the dismissal of charges or expungement of the record. This path acknowledges the rehabilitative potential of the individual and avoids the stigmatization associated with formal criminal convictions. However, diversion programs are not always equitably accessible. Those lacking resources, legal representation, or linguistic support may inadvertently forgo these alternatives, underscoring disparities in procedural justice. 3. Enhanced Penalties and Recidivism Legal systems often include provisions for enhanced sentencing in cases of recidivism or organized criminal conduct. These include: - Habitual offender statutes, under which repeat petty thefts may be elevated to felonies. - Three-strikes laws, where multiple misdemeanors culminate in severe penalties. - Aggravating factors, such as theft from vulnerable individuals or during states of emergency. Moreover, petty theft committed as part of a coordinated retail theft ring — a growing phenomenon especially in urban centers — may be prosecuted under laws targeting organized crime, resulting in significant prison time even for low-level participants. Read the full article

[aluprof]

Aluprof Support on Gateway 2 Compliance

By Wojciech Brożyna - MD Aluprof UK

Gateway 2 is a crucial regulatory checkpoint introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022, applying to higher-risk buildings, typically those over eighteen metres tall or with seven or more storeys and containing at least two residential units. Compliance is required before construction begins, meaning no work can legally start until the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has reviewed and approved a detailed building control application. This application must demonstrate that the building’s design meets all relevant Building Regulations and properly considers fire safety and structural safety risks.

The building control application submitted at the Gateway 2 stage is much more thorough than traditional applications. It requires developers to submit full design documentation, including plans, calculations, and specifications, along with a fire and emergency file and evidence that competent professionals are overseeing the project. Developers must also show how they will maintain the ‘Golden Thread’ which is a clear, up-to-date record of safety information applicable throughout the building’s life cycle. The application must also set out how any design changes during construction will be managed and reported to the regulator.

The introduction of Gateway 2 is part of a wider push to improve building safety following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, ensuring safety is prioritised from the very start of construction. By requiring a ‘stop/go’ decision point before work can begin, Gateway 2 aims to prevent unsafe designs from progressing into construction, increasing accountability and ensuring higher standards across the industry. This stricter process is designed to reduce safety risks during both construction and the eventual occupation of the building.

Gateway 2 is part of a staged process, the three gateways in the new system are: Gateway 1 – Pre-Planning: Considering safety risks at the planning application stage. Gateway 2 – Pre-Construction: Ensuring the design is safe before building starts. (this is where Gateway 2 compliance applies). Gateway 3 – Post-Construction: A final check before the building is occupied.

Aluprof UK has demonstrated a strong commitment to aligning with the Building Safety Act’s requirements, particularly concerning Gateway 2 approvals. Its broad range of high performance façade solutions, all 3rd party tested to the relevant standards makes Aluprof the ideal partner. In addition their major projects team collaborates closely with specialist façade contractors to ensure that all necessary supporting documentation and compliance measures are meticulously prepared for submission to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). This proactive approach is essential, especially in light of recent challenges faced by the BSR, such as delays in processing Gateway 2 applications due to an outsourced delivery model and a shortage of in-house technical expertise.

Aluprof’s vertical integration benefits specifiers by ensuring consistent product quality, streamlined supply chains, and enhanced technical support. With in-house system design, manufacturing, and testing, Aluprof delivers high-performance aluminium systems that meet stringent UK and EU building regulations, including Gateway 2 requirements under the Building Safety Act. This integrated approach allows for greater customisation, faster lead times, and improved cost efficiency, giving specifiers confidence in project timelines and compliance. Additionally, direct collaboration with Aluprof’s experts ensures tailored solutions that align with architectural intent while enhancing sustainability and energy efficiency.

UK-based facade specialists, Century Facades, in conjunction with the team at Aluprof UK, have recently progressed with the Gateway 2 application for the Devonshire Place project in London. The submission is currently under review, and final decision will be made within the statutory timelines unless an extension is agreed upon. Marcin Bara, Design Director at Century Facades takes up the story:

“In the context of UK construction industry, Gateway 2 focuses on ensuring compliance with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations and forms a “hold point” between the design and construction phases. It is crucial for a facade specialist contractor to work closely with the facade system supplier and vice versa to align on design intricacies, material specifications, and safety requirements. This collaboration must be based on trust and true partnership as only this ensures that the facade would not only meet aesthetic criteria but also adheres to performance and safety standards mandated by current Building Regulations via Gateway processes.

“Effective communication and coordination between the contractor and supplier help in identifying potential issues early, optimising resource use, and ensuring the facade system contributes to the building’s overall compliance, sustainability, and safety objectives. This is where key partners such as Aluprof can work as an extension arm to our competent and fully qualified in-house Design and Engineering Teams to ensure the application produced for Gateway 2 is of the highest possible standards.

“It is crucial for the system supplier to offer tailored approach to this new approval regime, so that their offer and service provided is project specific and matches our requirements as a specialist facade contractor fully. This is where our close partners such as Aluprof can play a key role in producing quality submissions, meeting expectations of our Clients entirely.”

Between October 1, 2023, and September 16, 2024, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) reported that they had received 1,018 Gateway 2 applications. Of these, only 146 were approved, equating to an approval rate of approximately 14%. The BSR rejected 25 applications, while the status of the remaining 847 applications was not specified. These delays have been attributed to several factors, including an unexpected surge in applications, a high number of incomplete or unclear submissions, and resource constraints within the BSR. Developers have expressed concerns that these bottlenecks are hindering essential housing projects, including student accommodations and build-to-rent homes.  

The BSR has acknowledged these challenges and is working to stabilise and improve the building control approval process for higher-risk buildings. They emphasise the importance of submitting clear and comprehensive applications to facilitate quicker decision-making and reduce delays. It seems there is still some confusion over the process with contractors and developers.

In short, Gateway 2 compliance is about proving to the Building Safety Regulator that the design of a higher-risk building meets all safety requirements before work starts on site. It is part of a much stricter regulatory process introduced after the Grenfell Tower disaster, aiming to raise standards and accountability across the construction sector.

Aluprof UK has been supporting specifiers in the UK and Ireland for over fifteen years with advanced systems that include high-performance windows, doors, and facade systems. Many UK and Ireland-based fabricators and installers supply these systems and are on hand to offer surveys and cost analysis as to what improvements can be made with likely paybacks. Further information about systems and specification support is available through the company website at aluprof.co.uk or direct from their UK head office in Altrincham by phoning +44 (0) 161 941 4005.

[xhemilbeharaj]

Primaret në PD, Kryesia nuk merr vendim

Kryesia e PD-së nuk mori një vendim për procesin e primarëve, por përgjegjësinë e miratimi të rregullores e kaloi te Këshilli Kombëtar. Organi më i lartë statutor do të mblidhet këtë të mërkurë, por Sali Berisha tregoi qartë se çfarë pret nga kandidatët për deputetë që do garojnë nën siglën e PD. ”Çdo kandidat për deputet, duke filluar nga dita e sotme të ketë si detyrë të regjistrojë 300…

[antonjesus]

Report finds 'substantial evidence' Matt Gaetz violated Florida statutor...

[notarypubliccalgary]

Complete Details about Attestation by Notary Public Calgary

Attestation is the act of attesting. A fundamental instance of an attestation might be a hallmark under of a legal paper from a notary public Calgary suggesting that she or he saw the author draw up as well as authorize the record.

In many cases, an attestation is simply a verification that a file was checked in front of witnesses. By wrapping up, the witnesses affirm that they saw the document being authorized as well as recognized the recognition of the trademark. They are not, nevertheless, guaranteeing anything in the paper itself; the record could be incorrect or incorrectly sent, as an example, yet this is not the task of people that vouched for it. The very same procedure adheres to in whole Alberta particularly discuss notary public Airdrie.

Witnesses could include their hallmark to a lawful document as an attestation.

An attestation can in addition provide included information relating to the trademark. On the attestation, problem consisted of to a will, for example, the people that license program that the testator was of audio mind when the will was composed, along with was thus able to honestly choose.

Attestation suggests that a document was checked in front of a witness.

If, for instance, someone is asked to confirm that he or she saw someone accrediting a lawful documents, he or she should certainly not provide an attestation for a data which has actually currently been authorized. An inaccurate attestation can be premises for responsibility in court as well as also it is essential to bear in mind that attestations, no problem precisely how irrelevant they could show up, can be used as evidence in court.

Attestations can similarly show up in the sort of records providing info which the signature confirms is proper. Someone using for a task could be requested an attestation letter from a previous company confirming the days of work and additionally pay mentioned in the work application. An attestation letter may be composed by a person as a part of an application for expert certification, revealing that she or he has in fact fulfilled the mentioned needs.

 A basic circumstances of an attestation might be a hallmark under of a legal paper from a notary public Calgary recommending that she or he saw the writer draw up as well as authorize the record.

Attestations can likewise reveal up in the type of documents offering details which the signatory validates is proper. Somebody using for a job may be asked for an attestation letter from a previous firm confirming the days of job and likewise pay discussed in the job application.

Check out our newly relesed article : how-do-affidavits-differ-from-statutory

[bqsocial]

Facebook & Instagram – 12 Days of Christmas Giveaway – x5 Festive Gonks & x1 Mystery Value B&Q Gift Card Prize Draw Terms and Conditions 12/12/2022

The Promoter:

B&Q Limited, B&Q House, Chestnut Avenue, Chandler’s Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 3LE

Who can enter?

This promotion is open to all residents of the UK aged 18 years and over, excluding employees of B&Q Limited, their families, agents or anyone else connected with the promotion.

How to enter: 

To enter, all of the following must be completed on either the Facebook or Instagram page/post:  

·       You must follow/like the page associated to the post you are interacting with eg. Instagram

·       You must like this post

·       You must tag a user in the comments

·       Entries must be received by 23:59 on 12th December 2022. Any entries received after this date will not be accepted.

Entry:

Only one entry per person will be accepted. Third party or multiple entries by the same person will not be accepted and we reserve the right to disqualify any entries we reasonably suspect to have been made fraudulently including through the use of bots, computer software or by any other means. We accept no responsibility for any lost, damaged or incomplete entries or entries not received due to a technical fault or for any other reason beyond our reasonable control.

Prize details: 

There will be 1 winner selected. The winner will receive the following prize:

•            x1 mystery value B&Q gift card (between £20 - £100)

•            x5 Assorted Sized Festive Gonks

The prize is non-transferable or exchangeable and no alternative is available. We reserve the right to replace the prize with a prize of equal or greater value where it becomes necessary to do so.

Winner selection and prize fulfilment:

1 winner will be selected at random from all valid entries received.

The winner will be contacted via response to their winning comment by 11am on the 13th of December 2022. To receive the prize, the winner will need to respond via private message providing their contact details. If the winner fails to provide their contact details within 7 days of initial contact from the Promoter, the prize will be offered to the next randomly chosen entrant. The prize will be dispatched within 5 days upon receiving the winners’ contact details.

Your Data:

We will process information about entrants in order to administer this promotion. For more information on how we use personal information, please see http://www.diy.com/customer-support/policies/privacy. By entering this promotion, you agree and consent to the processing of your personal data by us and by any third party acting on our behalf for the purposes of the administration and operation of the promotion.

Please note that we are obliged to either publish or make available on request the surname, county and, where applicable, the winning entry/entries of major prize winners. If you object to any of this information being made available in this way, please contact social.team@b-and-q.co.uk. We must nevertheless share this information with the Advertising Standards Authority where it becomes necessary to do so.

Your acceptance of these Terms:

We reserve the right to refuse entry or refuse to award any prize to anyone in breach of these Terms and Conditions and/or hold void, cancel, suspend or amend these Terms and Conditions where it becomes necessary to do so. Our decision on all matters relating to this promotion is final and binding. No correspondence will be entered into.

Liability:

By entering this promotion, you are deemed to have accepted and agreed to be bound by these Terms and Conditions.

Insofar as is permitted by law the Promoter and its agents and distributors will not in any circumstances be responsible or liable to compensate the winner or accept any liability for any loss, damage, personal injury or death occurring as a result of taking up the prize except where it is caused by the negligence of the Promoter, its agents or distributors or that of their employees.

This promotion is in no way endorsed or administered by or associated with Facebook or Instagram.

Governing Law:

Nothing in these Terms and Conditions restricts your statutory rights as a consumer. This promotion will be governed by English law and entrants submit to the jurisdiction of the English Courts.

[rwicsimmigrationagent]

Applying For a Partner Visa Subclass 801

If you are considering applying for a Partner Visa Subclass 801 in Australia, the process is easy. However, it is also important to consider some factors, including your relationship status. As a result, this fact sheet will focus on some of the more common scenarios and requirements. This means you should not rely solely on the information contained in this document. Instead, consult a lawyer to help you navigate the process. A professional immigration lawyer will be able to advise you on the best ways to proceed.

For example, if you are married, you will need to show a marriage certificate to prove your relationship. In addition, if you are living together as a de facto partner, you will need to provide a statement that you are jointly responsible for household bills, including a signature. Alternatively, if you have children together, you and your partner must submit a Statutor form. For children, you will need to provide police clearances and documents confirming their relationship.

If your partner is not a permanent resident of Australia, you will need to show the Immigration Department that you have a child of common law. If you break up with your partner during the process, you may be able to skip the two-year wait period. You must also be the victim of domestic violence or have joint custody of a child in Australia. For more information, check out the IARC's information sheet on relationship breakdown.

When you apply for a Partner Visa Subclass 801, you must be living together. In order to obtain this visa, you will need to be in Australia for at least a year. You must also fulfill certain health and character requirements. You must also have a de facto relationship with your partner in Australia for 12 months. If you are living together, your relationship must be genuine and serious. You should also have strong cultural ties with the partner in Australia.

You can apply for a Partner Visa if you are a spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen. This visa is a second step on the path to permanent residency. You will need a medical check and a police certificate before you apply for a permanent Partner Visa. The partner visa process can take as little as two years, and the process can take a year or longer. If your partner is a citizen of Australia, it's important to remember that the process can be quite lengthy.

Once you've been granted a temporary Partner Visa Subclass 801, the relationship between you and your partner must be ongoing. Once you have lived together for two years, you can apply for a permanent Partner Visa Subclass 801 and become a permanent resident. Once you're a permanent resident, you can travel as often as you want for the next five years. Your partner will also have access to all the benefits of a permanent residency visa.

Source: https://sites.google.com/view/immigrationagentperth/applying-for-a-partner-visa-subclass-801

[marie1773056]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jul/14/lawmakers-call-gen-mark-milley-answer-report-he-br/

[cacafirm]

[lajmengabota]

Nushi i PSD-së thumbon Kurtin me një video të një enveristi që flet për kultin e individit

Anëtari dhe aktivisti i Partisë Socialdemokrate, Nol Nushi e ka thumbuar kryeministrin e Kosovës dhe liderin e Lëvizjes Vetëvendosje, Albin Kurtin, duke publikuar një video ku një komunist i atëhershëm i Shqipërisë flet për kultin e individit dhe dashurinë ndaj diktatorit të atëhershëm, Enver Hoxha, shkruan Express.

“Qëndrimi i partisë sonë dhe vetë i shokut Enver ka qenë dhe është kundër kultit të individit dhe për këtë ne kemi dokumentacione të shumta ku është folur në të gjitha kongreset, në mbledhjet e rëndësishme, dokumentet e partisë e të gjitha. Por nuk duhet ngatërruar çështja e kultit me dashurinë që ka populli për udhëheqësin e tij”, thotë një enverist në videon e publikuar nga Nushi.

“Pjese nga Keshilli i Pergjithshem i Partise së Liderit Suprem“Aktivisti i Lëvizjes nuk duhet të jetë i lidhur me individin, por me idenë dhe programin”. Pooooooor…”, ka shkruar Nushi.

Kurti sot në mbledhjen e 44-të të Këshillit të Përgjithshëm të LVV-së tha se është shumë e rëndësishme që të shmangen rivalitetet e brendshme që lidhen me figura apo grupe të caktuara në qendrat e kësaj partie.

“Është e rëndësishme që nëpër qendrat tona të shmangen rivalitetet e brendshme që lidhen me figura apo grupe të caktuara. Aktivisti i Lëvizjes nuk duhet të jetë i lidhur me individin, por me idenë dhe programin. Aktivisti nuk duhet të kërkojë miqësinë me kryetarin, por miqësinë me qytetarin. Asnjë prej kryetarëve nuk ka për të qeverisur vetëm me miqtë e vet, e asnjë grup shoqëror nuk do të marrë në kontroll asnjë qendër apo asnjë komunë. Prandaj fushatat negative duhet të ndalen, ashtu siç duhet të ndalen edhe vetëshpalljet publike apo vetëkandidimet pompoze, si dhe pretendimet që dikush ka mbështetje nga niveli i tretë apo nga kryesia e Lëvizjes. Mbështetja jepet vetëm në mënyrë statutore, demokratike dhe institucionale, nuk është mbështetje një fotografi apo një takim diku me dikë”, ka thënë Kurti.

The post Nushi i PSD-së thumbon Kurtin me një video të një enveristi që flet për kultin e individit appeared first on Gazeta Express.

[xhemilbeharaj]

Nis gara për kryetarin e ri të Partisë së Lirisë

Nis gara për kryetarin e ri të Partisë së Lirisë

Sekretari organizativ i Partisë së Lirisë Enrdrit Braimllari ka bërë me dije ditën e sotme në një deklaratë për mediat se çfarë do të zhvillohet në Konventën Kombëtare të PL në 29 tetor. Braimllari deklaroi se konventa do të miratojë disa ndrysime në parti. Ndryshimet do të miratohen në zbatim të vendimeve të komitetit organizator si dhe ndryshime statutore në programin politik dhe zgjedhjen e…

[idjoti]

Salih Mustafa sot del sërish para Gjykatës Speciale

Gjykata Speciale ka caktuar konferencën e tretë të statusit në rastin e ish-eprorit të UÇK-së, Salih Mustafa.E njëjta, pritet të mbahet sot, shkruan Gazeta Metro. Data për mbajtjen e konferencës së tretë statutore është caktuar për 14 dhjetor, në orën 15:00. Mustafa është i arrestuari i parë nga Specialja. Më 28 shtator, ai nuk kishte nuk kishte pranuar të deklarohet për akuzat që lidhen me kinse krime lufte në Kosovë. Më 28 tetor, ish-eprori i UÇK-së është deklaruar i pafajshëm për katër akuzat e ngritura ndaj tij nga Specialja. Më 23 nëntor, gjykata ka vendosur që Mustafës t’i vazhdohet paraburgimi./gazetametro.net Read the full article

[tomdwilliams32]

Democrats hit Trump on taxes, Mueller and finances in 1 day

In a single day, House Democrats demanded President Donald Trump’s tax returns for six years, moved to get a decade’s worth of his financial records and prepared to issue a subpoena for the full Mueller report from the Justice Department.

Top House Democratic lawmakers and aides say the triple-headed attack was more by accident than design, but it’s also clear that April 3 marks a turning point for the new Democratic majority. In less than eight hours, House Democrats moved to an all-out investigative assault on Trump, one that the White House and Republican leaders blasted as unnecessary, openly partisan and a huge distraction from the country’s business.

House Democrats, though, see investigating Trump — even if special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t find clear-cut evidence of illegal behavior or collusion in his Russia inquiry — as their overriding duty.

Trump was immediately dismissive of the request by Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, to the IRS for six years of his personal and business tax returns. Trump fell back on the argument that he was still under audit, yet also signaled that he wasn’t in any mood to comply with the Democratic demand.

“Is that all? We are under audit, despite what people said, and working that out,” Trump told reporters. “I’m always under audit, it seems, but I’ve been under audit for many years because the numbers are big, and I guess when you have a name, you’re audited. But until such time as I’m not under audit, I would not be inclined to do it.” Under IRS policy, sitting presidents and vice presidents are audited.

But Neal said the request was well within his committee’s rights, and he urged the IRS to comply by an April 10 deadline.

“I today submitted to IRS Commissioner [Charles] Rettig my request for six years of the president’s personal tax returns as well as the returns for some of his business entities,” Neal said in a statement. “We have completed the necessary groundwork for a request of this magnitude and I am certain we are within our legitimate legislative, legal, and oversight rights.”

Neal added: “I take the authority to make this request very seriously, and I approach it with the utmost care and respect. This request is about policy, not politics; my preparations were made on my own track and timeline, entirely independent of other activities in Congress and the administration.”

Some of the most hardline Democrats on Ways and Means were overjoyed by Neal’s move, saying Trump’s tax returns should have been released months or even years earlier, as other presidents had done.

“Americans have a right to know if their president is compromised or corrupt,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said. “For much of his adult life, Trump has used his power to shield himself from scrutiny or accountability. Subjecting his tax records to sunlight can finally hold him to both.”

Pascrell insisted that Democrats were “prepared legally and morally.”

“If they want a fight,” he said, “they’ll get a fight.”

House and Senate Republicans strongly objected to Neal’s move, calling it an attempt to “weaponize” Congress’ tax panels.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) slammed “political fishing expeditions” and said he wouldn’t support Neal’s request. Like the Ways and Means Committee, Senate Finance can request any individual‘s tax returns.

“I think a person like me that’s had an equal opportunity approach to oversight, treating Republican administrations the same as Democratic administrations, speaks for itself,” Grassley said in a statement. “So, I will not go along with efforts to weaponize the authority of tax-writing committees to access tax returns for political purposes. Such an action would be unprecedented.”

Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on Ways and Means, was even more blunt in his objections: “This particular request is an abuse of the tax-writing committees’ statutory authority, and violates the intent and safeguards of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code as Congress intended.”

Neal’s IRS letter came just hours after Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said Trump’s accounting firm asked the panel to issue a subpoena before sending lawmakers 10 years of his financial records. Cummings said the firm intended to turn over the documents once it got the subpoena, a move that he promised would happen quickly.

“They have told us that they will provide the information pretty much when they have a subpoena,” Cummings said. “And we’ll get them a subpoena.”

Cummings had formally requested the documents in a March letter that referenced aspects of earlier testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and fixer, before the Oversight Committee. Cummings had asked the firm to turn over the information by Wednesday.

The Maryland Democrat’s comments came shortly after the Judiciary Committee green-lighted a subpoena for the full Mueller report, a move that is also likely to trigger a legal confrontation between the White House and Congress, but one that Democrats insist is necessary.

“We must make it harder for future presidents to behave this way,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said as his panel voted to give him the power to subpoena the full report. “We need a full accounting of the president’s actions to do that work.”

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member on Judiciary, rejected the Democratic move as pure political grandstanding.

“Without facts on their side, Democrats have put all their hope in optics,” Collins said.

Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said the trifecta of Democratic oversight moves on Wednesday was purely coincidental.

“It was simply a matter of the work that the chairman has been doing being completed,” Kildee said of Neal. “There was no real timing to any of this, it’s not like something was coordinated.” He added that the Democratic-led panel had spent months painstakingly crafting a legal argument that members feel confident could win in court, with extensive research and frequent consultations with the House counsel.

“The fact that we’re doing them is significant,” a senior Democratic aide added. “But the fact that we’re doing them on the same day is not. It is just accidental that it happened that way.”

House Democrats are also using their powers to go after Trump on policy. Earlier Wednesday, the House voted to formally condemn the White House’s legal efforts to dismantle Obamacare, forcing eight Republicans to go on the record opposing their own president.

Democratic leaders will also force members in the coming days to go on the record condemning Trump’s threats to close down the U.S.-Mexico border, presenting another unified front against the White House.

But it is on oversight of Trump that Democrats will get headlines, and it’s the area where their base has urged them to move aggressively.

“All three committees and the chairs made it abundantly clear they were looking for voluntary cooperation in response to their requests for information or testimony,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), a member of the Intelligence and Oversight committees.

“It’s a sign that there’s oversight finally in this place,” Krishnamoorthi added. “We were elected in the majority in part to act as a check and balance in addition to getting things done. … I’m not surprised about what happened today.”

Anita Kumar contributed to this report.

Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine

from Tom Williams Blog https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/03/house-democrats-trump-taxes-finances-mueller-report-1254928

[selkrood]

HR Executive

Medisyskart - Panchkula, Haryana - H. Executiv. Experienc. 2-. Yrs. i. Ecommerc. Salar. 30-35K/month. Industr. Interne. . Ecommerce. Functiona. Are. Recruitmen. . Payrol. processing,statutor. compliance,Performanc. ... from Offres d'emploi : Inde - Optioncarriere https://ift.tt/33tFE91 site=tumblr">