Contents of USB stick declared inadmissible in Meli extradition case

A court has declared the contents of a USB stick presented by the prosecution in extradition proceedings against alleged hacker Daniel Joe Meli inadmissible.

Meli, 28, is facing proceedings for extradition to the United States over alleged dealings on the dark web between December 2012 and June 2022. If extradited, he is expected to face charges of conspiracy, unauthorised access to protected computers to obtain information and illegally selling an interception device, among others.

The check-in agent was arrested in Malta on February 7, 2024 for allegedly selling and training criminals in the use of  Remote Access Trojan (RAT) software that bypasses security systems and remotely accesses computers without the victims’ knowledge. He was granted bail last week.

Prosecutors say that in February 2022, Meli had sold a RAT for $180 in bitcoin to an FBI online covert employee from Georgia.

Meli had initially agreed to be extradited but later changed his plea.. Proceedings were recommenced after the law was changed to allow circumstances such as a change of mind.

In a decree on March 24, the court had expunged from evidence a letter dated 26 January 2024 and a USB stick that showed the malicious software that Meli allegedly sold on the dark web. The prosecution appealed,  basing its arguments on the extradition treaty between Malta and the US, as well as various provisions of the Extradition Act. 

The court in its considerations, made a distinction between exhibiting the documents and their content. It observed that while the documents were exhibited on oath, their content – especially that of the USB stick – was never confirmed on oath.

In his decree, the court referred to the prosecution’s application in which it argued that the documents should be in the records of the case citing the relevant provisions, which require that documents be “duly authenticated”. The court observed that while the prosecution did not explicitly base its submissions on a specific article, it transpired that it was making reference to a provision which states that a document shall be deemed duly authenticated if, among other possibilities, it purports to be certified whether by a seal or otherwise by the ministry, department or other authority responsible for justice or for foreign affairs of the requesting country. In its submissions, the prosecution had referred to Josh Cavinato’s signature on behalf of the Department of Justice on a Diplomatic Note issued by the US embassy which contained a true copy of the extracts presented to the Government of Malta on 22 January. It argued that this satisfied the requirements at law.

The court observed, however, that the prosecution had already presented a photocopy of the Diplomatic Note earlier on in the proceedings, and it was fallacious to argue that the Diplomatic Note could be interpreted as a seal or certificate for the purpose of authentication.

“The court remains of the opinion that the documents presented on 17 March 2025 do not satisfy the criterion of ‘duly authenticated’ and therefore are inadmissible,” Magistrate Leonard Caruana said, before ruling that there was no legal basis for the court to change its previous position.

The court directed the parties to make their final submissions in the next sitting.

Lawyers Sean Xerri De Caro and Daphne Baldacchino are appearing for the Attorney General’s Office, together with Superintendent Mario Cushieri and Police inspector Robinson Mifsud prosecuted.

Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Franco Debono assisted Meli.