A Sofia court of appeal has thrown out a SLAPP action by Satabank’s Bulgarian co-owner Hristo Georgiev against Times of Malta, over an article the court held to be substantially true.

The action stemmed from an article published on January 27, 2019, on Times of Malta’s website with the headline ‘Billions of euros in Satabank transactions deemed highly suspicious,’ with particular reference to a quote from a source who said, “This makes previous money laundering cases look like child’s play.”

The St Julian’s bank was shuttered in 2018 over widespread breaches of money laundering laws, with the bank receiving a €3 million fine.

In his application before the court in the Republic of Srpska, Georgiev also claimed he felt aggrieved by a part of the article which stated that before Satabank was issued with a licence in Malta, the claimant “had an e-money business in Luxembourg” and that since then he had “been the subject of a number of international investigations for alleged crimes”.

Georgiev sued Allied Newspapers Ltd for compensation for non-pecuniary damages to the tune of 20,000 BGN (Bulgarian Lev), claiming the article damaged his “honour, dignity, reputation in society, including in his social and professional circle” and also caused him psychological and physical discomfort.

The first court threw out the action “in its entirety”, concluding that Georgiev’s claims were not proved.

He appealed that decision, requesting the court to quash the judgment and also to award him costs relative to the proceedings.

After assessing the evidence put forward, the Sofia City Court of appeal confirmed the judgment which it held to be “valid and admissible”.

The court was to consider whether the author’s conduct when preparing the article was unlawful.

Georgiev claimed that the story contained “false and disgraceful facts” in his regard. The court observed that when freedom of expression is not used to damage the reputation of others, statements and assessments through printed work “may be freely disseminated”.

“It shall not be unlawful conduct to express an opinion with a negative evaluation directly or indirectly affecting a particular person when his name is commented on or suggested in connection with a public matter relating to his office, activity or occupation.”

Factual statements in printed works could be tested for accuracy.

If found to be true, the publisher would not be held liable even if the statements “disparage” the subject person.

In this case, the article was based on “essentially allegations of fact”, namely that Georgiev was targeted by international investigations into offences committed in connection to an e-money business in Luxembourg.

However, none of the extracts cited in his court application contained any direct insult or defamation in his regard, in terms of the relative offences under the Bulgarian Criminal Code.

Title, content 'are, in substance, true'

According to documentary evidence put forward, the title of the article and the indicated content relating to Georgiev “are, in substance, true”.

The court observed that Georgiev is one of the shareholders of Satabank that was targeted by investigations by the Maltese authorities in connection with transactions carried out.

Georgiev’s activities “have been the subject of an investigation by the competent supervisory authorities of the Luxembourg financial system for wrongdoing,” said the court.

Moreover, upon the recommendation of the Malta Financial Services Authority, the European Central Bank had revoked the bank’s licence on June 30, 2020.

The MFSA exchanged information with the Luxembourg Financial Sector Supervisory Commission about Georgiev and correspondence to that effect was produced in evidence.

Nor was it disputed that the appellant had an e-money business in Luxembourg.

However, no information could be obtained from that jurisdiction as to whether Georgiev was subject to any checks since Luxembourg law did not allow disclosure of professional secrets.

“That does not mean, however, that no checks have in fact been carried out on the applicant.”

'A win for press freedom'

The allegation of “money laundering” is defamatory but it could not be inferred from the article that the author was linking Georgiev to previous cases of money laundering. Those activities were with reference to the bank itself whose licence was in fact revoked. And information to that effect came from “an official source and is correct”.

Times of Malta “had taken due care to verify the accuracy of the information disseminated in the article before printing,” declared the court, concluding there was no unlawful conduct on the part of the defendant’s employees involved in the publication.

The court thus rejected Georgiev’s appeal and ordered him to pay Allied Newspapers 3,000BGN representing legal costs for the appeal.

Times of Malta editor-in-chief Herman Grech welcomed the court’s decision, stressing that the case should never have been subjected to a chilling Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) in the first place.

“It’s disgraceful that a disgraced banker has once again invoked a foreign jurisdiction to act against a Maltese news organisation, where the story was published and where his bank was based.

“This verdict is not just a victory for Times of Malta, but a win for press freedom and the right of the public to know,” said Grech, who thanked lawyers Ganado Advocates and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom for their assistance.

SLAPPS are intended to silence critical speech or political expression that threatens the interests of the claimant through ruinously expensive, time-consuming and psychologically exhausting legal action.