A woman, pleading not guilty to defrauding some 50 victims in a €500,000 housing scam, was granted bail on Thursday after three more witnesses testified about the way they parted with their money but never got the promised property. 

Sarah Ann Gatt, a 41-year-old cleaner from St Venera, broke down in tears as her lawyers made fresh submissions on her behalf, telling the court that the accused had previously refunded some €300,000 to those claiming to have been swindled.

The prosecution is alleging that the woman siphoned hundreds of thousands of euros from her unsuspecting victims whom she lured into handing over cash deposits on a property to be acquired through a government housing scheme at a cheap price. 

'I trusted her'

A nail technician from Tarxien testified about how she first got to know the accused through an online clothes shopping site, placing orders, and later welcoming the woman into her home. 

“Obviously I trusted her because I let her into my home.”

But it was only recently that she found out that the “Sue Borg” she had texted, called, and met regularly was actually Sarah Ann Gatt whom she recognised at the dock. 

The witness also cited the contact numbers through with she communicated with the accused and even made Revolut payments for clothes orders.

One of those numbers belonged to ‘Simone’, who claimed to be the accused “chauffeur,” and another number belonged to her nephew, Luca Scicluna who worked at the Housing Authority. 

She first enticed the witness to the scheme by saying that her nephew could get “favourable prices.”

But after handing over some €17,700 in cash for a garage and adjacent field, as well as a number of PlayStations which the witness accepted to sell to her own clients on behalf of the accused, none of the promised property materialized. 

The witness produced an itemized list of payments, together with copies of WhatsApp chats and photos of the finished property sent by the accused. 

But the witness began to smell something fishy when one day, her mother called Luca’s number and heard the accused’s voice.

“Hello Sue?” the caller asked.

But the woman at the other end just hung up.

When they later questioned the accused about the call, without letting her know that they had recognised her voice, she simply replied, “are you sure you have the right number?”

They were supposed to sign the deed on the immovable property in December but the accused always came up with some excuse.

Nor did the PlayStations materialise and the witness had to fork out over €8,000 to refund the deposits after the accused said that some €250,000 worth of goods had been stolen from her Żabbar store.

She did not report the robbery to the police so as not to attract media attention, the accused had claimed.

'Sue' never existed

Suspicions were confirmed when the witness and her relatives, who also handed over thousands to the accused, called Housing and discovered that none of the contact persons named by ‘Sue’ actually existed. 

The next witness was a factory male employee who was introduced to the scheme by a colleague who said that her friend could fix sales of property seized by banks.

He paid a €15,000 deposit for a €45,000 maisonette and was later offered a house for €60,000 in Żurrieq. 

He took the second option and met “Sue” at a Balzan shop, taking along his brother who also invested in the scheme. 

However, the witness was unable to recognize the accused in court, saying that he only met “Sue” once and later got calls from a “Nadia from Housing” who updated him on the process. 

He sensed nothing untoward in paying in cash since the woman told him that “għax dawn l-affarijiet hekk imorru.” (this is how things happen).

Nor did he find it strange that the receipt apparently issued by the Housing Authority was written in ink.

Only when a friend sent him a link to an online news report about the alleged scam that reality finally dawned.

His brother also testified about the meeting with “Sue Tesi” and insisted that he never gave money to the accused. 

He had paid a total €64,000 for a property in Kirkop. 

“I only gave money to Sue Tesi,” he insisted.

However, the accused was familiar since he worked at the Corradino prison and he recognized her as the inmate admitted over a fraud case. 

The prosecution said that there were some 30 or 40 more witnesses to go.

The risk of tampering with evidence as well as the accused’s tendency to commit such offences were grounds for objecting to bail.

Defence lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri promptly rebutted that although the amounts were considerable, Gatt had already refunded some €300,000.

The victims’ main interest is not for the woman to remain in jail but to work so that they could be repaid, argued Debono.

A female guard approached her telling her to calm down as the accused wept.

Moreover, the alleged victims had all given their recorded version, Debono said.

Considering those submissions, the court, presided over by magistrate Astrid May Grima, upheld the request, granting bail against a deposit of €20,000, a personal guarantee of €30,000, daily signing of the bail book and under a curfew between 7pm and 6am.

Inspector Shaun Friggieri led the prosecution, assisted by AG lawyer Andrea Zammit. 

Charles Mercieca, Ana Thomas and Christian Camilleri appeared as parte civile.