A judge has confirmed a decision directing the police commissioner to press charges against lawyer Alessandro Lia over suspected complicity in a car transfer fraud.
The court clarified that this decision did not imply “some form of guilt” by Lia, but a criminal process was the only way to exclude the lawyer’s suspected involvement in the fraud since the police had not carried out the necessary tests in the course of their investigations.
The case revolved around the transfer of a vehicle which Lia’s father-in-law, Victor Sant, had decided to part with.
After airing his thoughts in the presence of close family members, who at the time also included Lia, his son-in-law suggested that the Renault Megane model could be scrapped.
He offered to handle the task for Sant.
Later, Lia informed him that all he managed to get for the scrap material was €100.
But when Sant subsequently checked with Transport Malta he discovered that the car had actually been transferred to a third party rather than scrapped.
Sant insisted he never signed the declaration form for such a transfer and claimed the signature on the relative document presented to Transport Malta was not his.
Sant filed challenge proceedings against the Police Commissioner for criminal action to be taken against Lia.
In September, a Magistrates’ Court upheld the challenge and ordered police action, observing that although Lia had made no monetary gain, there was prima facie grounds for criminal action.
The alleged document falsification could only be determined by a calligraphy expert appointed by a court presiding over criminal proceedings.
The Police Commissioner appealed that decision asking the court to quash the magistrate’s judgment.
Sant’s lawyers argued that the appeal filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the commissioner was late.
However, the Criminal Court turned down that plea, observing that although legal time limits were to be “scrupulously” respected, in this case, the delay was not through the AG’s fault.
The first court’s decision and the case records had been sent late from court and consequently, the AG was not to be penalised for the shortcomings of others.
Accomplice in fraud
The court observed that challenge proceedings served as “judicial review” to determine whether the reasons for the police’s “inertia” to act upon a notice of crime were justified or not.
The court observed that Lia had assisted in the transfer of the vehicle by allegedly handing a copy of the owner’s ID card and thus there was prima facie evidence of his suspected role as accomplice in the fraud.
Although Sant appeared to have been copied in an email sent by Lia to the insurance company to stop renewal of the car policy, Sant’s testimony in court cast doubt on the AG’s argument that Sant knew that his car was being transferred rather than scrapped.
Sant also insisted he never signed the transfer.
No calligraphy test was done to eliminate Lia’s suspected involvement in that transfer.
In his email to the insurance company, Lia said the vehicle had been transferred to a third party. The transfer took place the next day.
In light of all considerations, Mr Justice Neville Camilleri deemed that the first court was correct in saying that the suspected signature falsification could only be determined through a calligraphy test in criminal proceedings.
Since the police did not carry out the necessary examinations in their investigation, Lia’s involvement could only be excluded through the criminal process.
There was no reason to vary the first court’s decision, said the judge, clarifying that this was only on a prima facie level based on court records.
“In no way was this court implying some form of guilt by Dr Lia in respect of charges to be pressed against him,” said the court, ordering both judgments to be served “immediately” upon the Police Commissioner for the necessary action.
Lawyers Franco Debono and Edward Gatt assisted Sant.