A certified accountant and registered auditor who persisted in exercising his profession without an indemnity insurance cover required by law has been declared guilty and fined.

Joseph Sammut, currently facing separate proceedings for alleged misappropriation and fraud while helping Libyan nationals set up companies and acquire residence permits in Malta, was fined €2,000 for breaching the mandatory requirement expressly laid down in the Accountancy Profession Act.

The accountant, a former Labour Party candidate who had also occupied the post of party treasurer, was targeted by criminal prosecution for continuing to exercise his profession without the required insurance cover. 

In annual returns, dated 2017 and 2018, submitted to the Accountancy Board, Mr Sammut, as “sole practitioner…. warrant number…..”, had declared that “due to judicial proceedings, insurance company had refused cover”.

Moreover, the accused himself had declared in his reply dated May 2019 that, “since 2016, precisely May 1, 2016, the undersigned was precluded from renewing his insurance policy and could not obtain alternative insurance cover in spite of constant attempts to do so”.

The prosecution had further sealed its case through the testimony of the secretary of the Accountancy Board who had explained how, in spite of repeated calls by the board, Mr Sammut failed to return his warrant.

This was “the best proof,” said the court, presided over by magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, pointing out that it effectively meant that Mr Sammut had “to date persisted in his criminal wrongdoing”.

The court rejected the defence plea that the action was time-barred, noting that the offence was punishable with a possible maximum fine of €6,000 or a maximum three-month jail term or both.

This meant that the applicable term of prescription was two years. 

Given that his letter and annual returns to the board were dated May 2019, in the best case scenario, the action would be time-barred in 2021, the court observed. 

As for the plea that Mr Sammut did not have a warrant, the court observed that the accused’s own declarations to the board proved otherwise.

Were it not so, in view of the annual returns presented to the board, Mr Sammut’s actions would potentially have constituted “far graver offences” than that attributed in this case, the court added. 

The prosecution had amply proven its case, said the court, thereby declaring Mr Sammut guilty and condemning him to pay a fine of €2,000.

Inspector Paula Ciantar prosecuted.