A magisterial inquiry into the operations of the now-shuttered Pilatus Bank concluded that the case concerning the secret company Egrant was not “closed”, a court heard on Monday.
“That was last year and police are still to arraign Pilatus Bank officials,” said lawyer Jason Azzopardi when making arguments against a request filed by former prime minister Joseph Muscat and his wife Michelle to be admitted as “interested parties” in perjury proceedings against former FIAU manager Jonathan Ferris.
The Muscat couple filed that application in November 2020, even before criminal charges had been issued. Their request remained pending until the court heard submissions by the parties’ lawyers.
They lost courtroom rights granted to them by magistrate Joseph Mifsud who then abstained, leading the second magistrate to revoke the decision.
The Egrant inquiry was triggered by a report filed by Muscat following media “allegations” about the secret company belonging to his wife and about the “large sums of money” involved, explained Muscat’s lawyer Pawlu Lia.
Yet, after months of investigations by then-magistrate Aaron Bugeja, the inquiry concluded in July 2018 that Muscat had nothing to do with those allegations and that the alleged money transactions involving Pilatus Bank were “not true”.
Moreover, the inquiring magistrate had directed police to take criminal action against a number of individuals, including Ferris for alleged perjury when testifying at the inquiry.
“Therefore the Muscats have an interest to clarify matters,” argued Lia, pointing out that this was especially so since to date “there were people who cast doubt on that inquiry.”
By participating in the perjury case as injured parties, the Muscats could “contribute or rebut where necessary.
”But Ferris’ lawyer, Azzopardi, pointed out that the law granted parte civile status to an “injured” not “interested” party.
Having an interest did not grant the right to join proceedings.S
uch an argument in respect of the crime of perjury was “inconceivable” and “beyond the realm of elasticity”.
Without entering into the merits of the case and stressing that the charges were being “strongly contested,” Azzopardi pointed out that Ferris had testified before magistrate Bugeja on the basis of intelligence and almost one year after the inquiry had kicked off.
That inquiry was triggered by Muscat after journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia reported a claim by Maria Efimova, a former Pilatus employee, that the secret Egrant company belonged to his wife.
Last year, a magisterial inquiry into the operations of Pilatus Bank, costing some €7 million, had recommended the re-opening of the Egrant probe, said Azzopardi.
Yet, police had still not acted upon those recommendations by pressing charges against certain former officials at the now-shuttered bank.
“I too have an interest in seeing that those officials, indicated by the inquiring magistrate last year, face charges,” said Azzopardi.
The law itself spoke of the party having “an interest”, rebutted Lia, making reference to article 410(4) of the Criminal Code concerning “any party having an interest.”
“I did not invent that,” said Muscat’s lawyer.
Not every interested party is an injured party, stressed Azzopardi. “That’s the brick wall against which Lia’s argument fails.”
The court, presided over by Magistrate Marse-Ann Farrugia, is expected to decree on the matter in October.