A freezing order against a former senior official at Pilatus bank who owned no assets that had derived from suspect criminal activity would be “disproportionate” and prejudicial, a court has declared.
This was the outcome of a decision delivered by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera on Thursday presiding over an application by the Attorney General to have such freezing order issued against Pilatus bank, extended also to Claude-Ann Sant Fournier, former head of compliance and legal department at the bank.
Sant Fournier and a representative for the bank both pleaded not guilty when arraigned earlier this month, over alleged offences in breach of the Money Laundering Act dating back to March 2018 and the preceding years.
During that arraignment, the court, presided over by magistrate Joseph Mifsud upheld a request for a freezing order against the bank but applied a similar order only temporarily in respect of Sant Fournier, pending any appeal by the prosecution in that regard.
On September 7 the Attorney General filed an application to revoke that decision and obtain a permanent freezing order against Sant Fournier.
After hearing submissions by both parties, Madam Justice Scerri Herrera, presiding over the Criminal Court, observed that prosecution witnesses had testified that no assets derived from the alleged criminal activity had been found in possession of Sant Fournier.
The purpose of a freezing order was to prevent the accused from disposing of monies and other property derived through such suspect activity, said the judge.
In case of a conviction, those assets would be confiscated in favour of the state.
Yet, in this case, especially in light of prosecution testimony, a freezing order against Sant Fournier could serve as no safeguard against such loss of assets given that these assets were not found in her possession.
Proceedings were still at an early stage and the magistrates’ court was yet to declare whether the accused had a case to answer, went on the judge, declaring that a freezing order was not to apply in respect of Sant Fournier.
Such court order “would only serve to cause her great prejudice through State interference in the use of property acquired through legitimate means,” said Madam Justice Scerri Herrera.
The legitimate aim of a freezing order is to safeguard public or general interest, she said.
Such an order would not serve as a precautionary tool but one that would prejudice the accused.
By upholding the AG’s request the court would be exercising a lack of proportionality in respect of the accused’s constitutional right to the enjoyment of her property, said the court, rejecting the AG’s request.
Lawyers Stefano Filletti and Kathleen Calleja Grima are counsel to Sant Fournier.