VIDEO/ Among hundreds of shops, why did the students burn only the iuteCredit office?!

Was the attack on the microcredit company’s office a random act of vandalism or an expression of deeper public discontent? The incident reported during the protest in Tirana raises questions that go beyond property damage and bring the debate over the cost of quick loans and consumer protection back into focus.

The protest by students and young people in Tirana, which is still continuing, has been marked by tensions, clashes with police and property damage. But one reported incident stands out: the burning of the iuteCredit microcredit company’s office.

What stands out in footage shared on social media, and has been confirmed by the news outlet Albeu.com, is that among the many businesses along the protest route, only this company’s office was attacked. That raises an unavoidable question: Why iuteCredit?

Was it a target chosen at random amid the chaos of the protest, or does the company’s name symbolize, for some citizens, the problems associated with quick loans, high interest rates and the financial burden on families?

When a small loan can become a heavy burden

For years, Albania’s microcredit sector has been the subject of debate over interest rates, fees, late-payment penalties and debt collection practices.

For many citizens, a quick loan can be a temporary solution to an urgent need. But when costs are high and the ability to repay is limited, that same loan can become a heavy financial obligation.

iuteCredit has also been the subject of public complaints from citizens and media reports about disputed lending practices.

According to the price list published by iuteCredit itself, effective from February 12, 2026, the nominal annual interest rate for cash loans can reach 44.4%, while the rate for loans for products purchased from partners can reach 44.1%.

For someone facing financial difficulties, the difference between the amount received and the final amount owed can be decisive.

Has discontent with microcredit companies been building?

In a country where many families face financial hardship, unemployment, low wages and a high cost of living, quick loans are more than just financial products.

They affect a family’s ability to deal with an emergency, buy household appliances or cover the month’s expenses.

The problem arises when a small initial debt becomes increasingly difficult to repay.

Public allegations, consumer complaints and disputed debt-enforcement cases have raised serious questions about how part of the non-bank lending market operates.

The reported attack on the iuteCredit office therefore raises another possibility that should not be overlooked: Could the act have stemmed from accumulated discontent with the company or the sector it represents?

That remains a possibility, not a conclusion, though the footage shows a great deal.

A question for the Bank of Albania, too

The incident is also an opportunity to refocus attention on the supervision of non-bank financial institutions.

As the authority overseeing this sector, the Bank of Albania is responsible for monitoring compliance with regulations and the transparency of financial products.

How understandable are contracts to the average consumer? How clearly are effective interest rates, fees and penalties presented? How effective are the mechanisms for handling complaints?

And, above all, how well protected are people who take out small loans precisely because they are in a difficult financial situation?

These questions require answers from the institutions, regardless of who is found responsible for the incident during the protest.

Setting fire to a business, attacking private property or endangering people’s lives cannot be justified as a form of protest.

Responsibility for any such act must be determined by law enforcement authorities on the basis of evidence.

But condemning the violence should not end the debate over the real problems that may exist in the relationship between financial institutions and citizens.

If the attack on iuteCredit proves to have been deliberate, investigators must establish not only who carried it out, but also why that particular target was chosen.

If it was a random act, that too must be clarified.

Because the question that remains is not only who set an office on fire, but whether the episode reflects wider social discontent that institutions have not adequately heard.

Both state authorities and iuteCredit itself owe the public answers. /albeu.com/