A €20 million freezing order against Sciacca Grill has been dropped by court order, after it was cleared of all criminal charges related to the Vitals concession deal earlier this week.

Sciacca Grill, which runs a chain of eponymous restaurants, had been named in criminal charges filed against Joseph Muscat, Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi, chiefly because of its previous associations with Schembri. 

But as proceedings continued on Monday, Magistrate Rachel Montebello ruled that prosecutors had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the company’s continued inclusion in criminal proceedings. 

Lawyers Franco Debono, David Bonello and Marion Camilleri challenged the freezing order against the company, arguing chiefly that once criminal proceedings against the entity had been dropped, then so should the freezing order.

The challenge was filed within the seven-day time limit imposed by law, almost a month ago and in between then and the actual date of the hearing, Sciacca Grill had since been acquitted of wrongdoing in this case.

The company said in its filing that it had no involvement whatsoever in the hospitals concession and that Keith Schembri had sold the company, which had once been called Kasco Foods, to the restaurant’s current owners in 2014.

In its rebuttal, the prosecution said there was still a possibility that the Attorney General could appeal the decision and order Sciacca Grill to be arraigned afresh. Should this come to pass, without a freezing order in place, the funds would not be protected and this is why the order should continue to be upheld, they said.

In her decision on Friday, Madam Justice Edwina Grima said that while the AG did indeed have a right to appeal the decision to acquit Sciacca Grill, it had not filed an application seeking a warrant for the arrest of the discharged entity.

This means that at present, Sciecca Grill must be considered acquitted of all the charges levelled against it.

“The Court is not given the privilege of waiting for the Attorney General to decide whether or not to contest the decision to discharge and request this court to arrest the discharged person anew,” the judge said, noting that the one-month timeframe in which freezing orders can actually be challenged is “quite short”.

While the law did not envisage the current situation Sciacca Grill found itself in, it still held at its core that the company should not remain subject to a freezing order when it had been acquitted of criminal wrongdoing.For these reasons, the court revoked the freezing order issued against Sciacca Grill.