A man has failed in his bid to overturn his conviction for usury before a court of appeal which confirmed that the victim’s version was more credible.
Joseph Schembri, a horse trader who occasionally undertook construction projects, first landed under suspicion in 2009 after trying to cash a cheque at a local bank.
That cheque turned out to have been issued in the name of a company whose bank account had been closed years before and the signatory was a third party who had no connection with that company.
Police investigations unravelled an intricate web of fake private writings and pretence orders for woodworks revolving around a loan at an interest that exceeded legal rates.
Schembri was targeted by criminal action for the alleged usury and was handed a 12-month suspended sentence and a €4,000 fine upon conviction by a magistrates’ court in 2016.
He was also ordered to refund his victim €6,911.
Schembri filed an appeal, attacking the credibility of the victim’s testimony and claiming that the magistrate could not lean in favour of one testimony or another as most of the witnesses had testified before a different magistrate who had retired from the bench pending proceedings.
But the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti, threw out this argument, pointing out that the parties had expressly exempted the succeeding magistrate from hearing those testimonies all over again.
Delving into the facts of the case to ascertain whether the first court’s decision was reasonably and legally valid, Mr Justice Grixti confirmed the judgment in its entirety.
The accused claimed that he had engaged a carpenter, to carry out works at two apartments he was finishing.
But eight months later the works at the San Ġwann apartment had not materialised.
The parties entered into a private agreement in May 2008 wherein the various items of furniture and wood finishings were listed to be completed by end June, against a daily penalty of €100 in case of non-completion.
However, the accused later denied there was the said private writing, insisting that neither of the parties could write and claiming that the victim had run into loans with many other people.
Pending appeal, the appellant requested leave to produce a new witness.
This witness, who worked in the construction industry, was a common acquaintance of both the accused and the victim.
He explained that he had owed money to the victim and, so, after coming across a cheque book at Qormi, he had signed two or three cheques and directed his creditor to get Schembri to cash them.
It turned out that the victim had introduced this third party to money lenders and had subsequently ended up being caught in between, making good for the loans as surety.
Ultimately the court of appeal concluded that this complex situation of private writings and orders for furniture works was fake, declaring that it was not at all impressed by this last witness’s statements.
When all was considered the most reliable version remained that of the victim and the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt, said the judge, throwing out the appeal.