AI-generated editorial illustration. The portrait composition and coastal scene with machinery are conceptual; they do not document an actual meeting or event.
The Kastratis brought Jared Kushner the Albanian land opportunity, according to his October 8 response to The New Yorker.
For the Albanian public, however, the group’s role remains far less clear. When machinery appeared in Pishë-Poro-Nartë and journalists sought explanations, the company first deferred its response and then offered no comment.
Between these positions lies the central question: what relationship does Kastrati have today with the investment it helped bring to Kushner? Introducing a property can be the start of a much broader collaboration, but only the agreements and full disclosures by the parties can show where brokerage ends and an economic interest begins.
Kastrati’s connection to the project was public before October. BIRN recalled that Musa Kastrati had spoken publicly about a company role as early as March 2024. Kushner’s response thus brings a known connection back into focus, one that still lacks a full explanation.
From the master plan to the January meetings
An early trace of the group’s interest in Zvërnec appears in The Albanian Files, published in 2026. In the project list of architecture firm Archea Associati, “Zvërnec master plan” is listed with a 2022 start date, Kastrati Group shpk as developer, and concept design as its stage.
The architecture firm names the group as the developer of a master plan well before the works that sparked public controversy in spring 2026. The table, however, gives no land parcels and does not establish whether the 2022 concept was later incorporated into the current project.
The group and the designers should explain this connection. Was an existing concept transferred to Kushner’s partnership, was it reworked, or was this a different initiative in the same area? An answer would help establish who prepared the investment opportunity before it was presented as a major foreign-investor project.
In January 2026, the connection was visible in the photograph of the group gathered with Ivanka Trump and the architects. It included Musa Kastrati, also identified by BIRN, and Ornela Bego, Kastrati Group’s head of public relations.
Albania’s Territorial Development Agency, AZHT, also enters this story. Following Citizens.al’s information request about the January meetings, AZHT acknowledged in its February 26 response that its representatives had attended activities in Vlorë in an institutional advisory capacity.
The agency said it had not been involved in organising them and held no information about the organiser, participant numbers or coordination. Its response did not identify its own representatives either, leaving its account of the institution’s presence at an activity connected to the project incomplete.
The photograph does not tell the public who holds shares or who will profit from construction. The business representatives visible in it, and the institutional participation acknowledged by AZHT, make the request to know what was discussed and in what capacity each person participated all the more reasonable.
A tanker and responses that left the role unclear
At the end of April, the debate moved from meetings and drawings to the site itself. Citizens.al’s May 4 report recalled the April 30 alert about heavy machinery in the protected area and its request for a statement from Kastrati Group. The company had promised an answer that Monday, but said in a second exchange that it still had no comment.
On May 7, journalist Erisa Kryeziu reported a Kastrati tanker at the site which, according to workers, was supplying the heavy machinery. There were no information boards identifying the builder, and workers declined to say who had contracted them.
Taken alone, a supply vehicle indicates a commercial service and does not identify the investment’s owner. But the question about Kastrati’s role did not arise solely from the logo on the tanker: it followed the 2022 concept design, Musa’s 2024 statement and the January meetings.
On May 29, BIRN published Kastrati’s response directing questions to the developer, Zvërnec South Adriatic Development. That identified the entity dealing with the authorities, but did not explain the group’s own relationship with it.
It remains unclear whether the services on site were provided under ordinary supply contracts, whether the group had another development role, and what interest it retained after introducing the land. Naming the company behind the project is not enough to answer these questions.
The land accounts and the Athens meeting
BIRN reported Musa’s proposals for cooperation or property purchases, according to local businesspeople, and residents’ contacts with intermediary Dervish Dina.
These accounts place the connection with the group in its dealings with landowners and residents as well. They remain interviewees’ accounts and do not, on their own, establish the terms of a representation or partnership agreement.
BIRN reported on June 1 that Ornela Bego had attended the late-May Athens meeting at Mayor Brunilda Mersini’s invitation to explain the project to residents. Two participants said they were asked not to protest; Bego denied this, while Mersini said her aim was to prevent social conflict.
Despite that disagreement over what was said, the presence of Kastrati’s public relations chief to explain the project matters. The group was appearing before residents through its own representative, while its economic and contractual relationship with the developer remained unexplained.
Kushner’s statement adds his account of how the investment began. Completing that history also requires Kastrati’s response, connecting the project’s origins with the role the group and its representatives have since played.
Who is a partner and what has been bought
The uncertainty extends beyond Kastrati. Kushner describes a minority stake, with Asher Abehsera running day-to-day operations.
The June 25 beneficial ownership extract identifies Mohamadmoataz and Ramez Alkhayyat through a chain of companies. Following the declared percentages produces an indirect holding of 35% each, but the document does not identify the owners of the remaining share at the level where a 70% holding is recorded.
Kushner’s percentage and the company through which he participates still need clarification. The same applies to any Kastrati interest: a family’s name in the project’s history does not, by itself, establish its share of profits, equity or other contractual rights.
Registration outside Albania identifies a company’s legal domicile. Understanding who stands behind the investment also requires knowing the people who benefit, the agreements between them and the roles of the Albanian companies that have worked on the project.
The Zvërnec development company changed hands in May. The May 7 agreement transferred all shares in Zvërnec South Adriatic Development from Universal Properties Projects B.V. to Sazan Development Holding for €306,000, including a capital contribution of approximately €208,000 by the seller.
That transaction concerns the company and the conditions of its transfer. For the land, Kushner declares a €230 million private purchase, but the payment documents make it necessary to distinguish the contracted price from money that has reached the sellers.
Citizens.al reported on July 10 that approximately €128.3 million linked to the April 24 contracts had been seized in the notary’s account. The sums included about €110.2 million for Artur Shehu and approximately €10 million and €8 million for Ferdinand and Burbuqe Sulaj, ready to be transferred to the sellers.
The position reported in July does not explain the status of every payment through October. Funds seized in the notary’s account must be distinguished from money that has reached the sellers.
Explaining the €230 million requires all the contracts and parcels covered by that figure. The difference between an overall price and funds seized under some contracts is not proof of missing money; it calls for a complete account of the payments.
Three years in the statement and contracts in 2026
Kushner describes a purchase more than three years ago and verified ownership.
That timeline places the purchase before October 2023, whereas Citizens.al’s reporting refers to contracts dated April 24, 2026.
There may have been an earlier agreement, rights to buy in future, or a purchase of another part of the territory. If so, the relevant act, company and property need to be identified, because the start of design work does not determine when ownership was acquired.
The buyer’s legal due diligence also needs explaining in light of the subsequent investigation. Citizens.al reported SPAK’s suspicions concerning how the land was acquired and the transactions involving it.
The seizure is not a final conviction and does not prove Kushner’s or the buyer’s involvement in forgery. But it raises a specific question about the ownership checks: what disputes were identified, and how was the buyer protected from their consequences?
Public responsibility does not end with a land sale
Kushner refers to Albanian approvals and promises improved biodiversity. Those commitments need to be considered alongside the decisions and work that have already taken place on the ground.
In its May 12 response, the National Inspectorate for the Protection of Territory, IKMT, mentioned a preliminary environmental impact assessment report. On May 18, the National Agency of Protected Areas, AKZM, said the area had no approved management plan and described an April 25 request to suspend work until legal documentation was submitted.
The same correspondence mentioned a March 11 notice concerning geological studies, while the decision covering fencing and preparatory works is dated April 29. This chronology calls for an account of what each act authorised and how its conditions were observed.
A private land purchase does not replace this responsibility of public institutions. The distinction Rama drew on June 5 between state negotiations over Sazan and private land transactions opposite the island also needs to be maintained: the Zvërnec land documents do not explain the Sazan agreement.
For Sazan too, AIDA identified Asher Abehsera as the investor side’s official representative, while listing ten meetings of the state negotiating group between January 13 and October 27, 2025. His role connects the management of the private Zvërnec project with the investor’s representation in dealings with the state over Sazan.
Sazan received conditional strategic status for ten years on December 30, 2024, before this negotiation process, with an initial negotiating period of 90 working days and a possible 90-day extension. In its February 2026 response, AIDA said it had received no expression of interest or application for Zvërnec from this investor side.
The December 30, 2025 decision extended negotiations to 120 working days from notification, with another 120 possible by agreement. The ministries were given 60 working days from notification of the decision to set the marina’s technical and legal conditions.
The cost of explosive-ordnance clearance shifted from the investor to the Ministry of Defence. That change calls for a public accounting: how much does the work cost, why is the state assuming it, and what benefit does it secure in return?
One part of Kushner’s rebuttal is supported by the dates. The Vlorë Airport concession contract was signed on April 20, 2021, before the summer when he says his interest in Albania began. Its initial approval therefore cannot automatically be attributed to that later interest.
For Zvërnec, however, answering critics requires much more than an international name and a large purchase price. It requires an explanation of the full partnership, the role of the Albanian group that brought the land opportunity, and how rights over it were secured.
Kushner has placed Kastrati within the investment’s history. It is now the group’s turn to explain its place in the project today, while public institutions must show what decisions and safeguards underpin the transformation of a protected area.