A magistrate has advised the prosecution in a money laundering case not to “bite off more than it can chew”, to avoid dragging out proceedings to the detriment of those facing prosecution while all their assets are hit by a freezing order. 

The issue came to the fore in ongoing proceedings against Florinda Sultana, 30-year-old restaurant manager and stepdaughter of former footballer Darren Debono and Albert Buttigieg, retired bank employee, who are pleading not guilty to money laundering and other financial crimes. 

Criminal action against the two former directors, fronting operations at Porticello and Capo Mulini restaurants, kicked off in April 2021 as an offshoot of an extensive police crackdown on oil smuggling. 

Debono and former footballer Jeffrey Chetcuti were also targeted and charged, both likewise pleading not guilty. 

When the case against Sultana and Buttigieg continued, Inspector James Turner was summoned to exhibit a report including extractions from a number of electronic devices seized during police searches.

But it turned out that the devices themselves were never exhibited in the proceedings. 

Asked by Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, the inspector explained that those devices had been presented in separate proceedings. 

Reports referring to devices which did not feature among the evidence produced, were useless and inadmissible, remarked the magistrate, none too pleased. 

Faced with that situation, defence lawyer Stefano Filletti promptly questioned the relevance of such extractions when “piles of data and documents were dumped” without explaining their relevance and use. 

While the inspector could not explain the relevance of the documents at issue, AG lawyer Antoine Agius Bonnici said that he had not yet managed to examine the police reports.

Asked when those reports had been drawn up, the inspector confirmed that it was in November 2020. 

“You didn’t have time to read through the reports in two years,” exclaimed the magistrate, questioning why the prosecution had arraigned the accused before all evidence was in place. 

Such dragged-out proceedings and prosecution delays spelt prejudice for the accused, Filletti stepped in.

The situation was made worse by freezing orders which have now recently been declared to be in breach of the accused’s fundamental human rights.“You cannot bite off more than you can chew,” remarked the court, addressing the prosecution. 

All reports can be exhibited and then possibly removed if found to be lacking or irrelevant, argued the prosecuting lawyer. 

But the defence objected to that line of argument.

Documents were not simply exhibited without first determining their relevance, why they were presented as well as the object of proof. 

“In this case we have devices, including laptops and mobiles of third parties who were never charged with any crimes. What is their relevance,” Filletti pressed on. 

The court could not accept such handling by the prosecution who were still trying to present evidence almost two years down the line, while the accused remained slapped with a freezing order, pointed out the magistrate. 

“This is an injustice and the court will not allow it,” magistrate Frendo Dimech firmly declared. 

One of the documents on the magistrate’s bench was a document pertaining to Mediterranean Offshore Bunkering.

“What’s the relevance,” asked the magistrate, sifting through the papers. 

The court granted the prosecution one last chance to analyse the documents, warning that if more time was wasted, the court would issue fines. 

If investigations were not yet concluded, then why did the prosecution rush to prosecute, questioned the magistrate. 

The court ordered the inspector who had seized those documents to explain the relevance of each and every one of them by the next sitting, warning that responsibility was to be shouldered for such delays. 

The case continues in January. 

Lawyers Stefano Filletti and Martina Cuschieri were defence counsel.