Trafficking case HR manager turned whistleblower will not be punished by court

The Criminal Court has exempted a secretary and human resources manager at JF Group from punishment in terms of the Protection of the Whistleblower Act, in what is "possibly" a first by the local courts.

The woman, whose name is banned by court order, was arraigned in court following an investigation.

According to the Bill of Indictment published in the judgment, in 2018, Identity Malta was investigating several work and residence permits submitted by people who were almost all from the Philippines. The majority of them had a job as cleaners.

From the investigation, it emerged that a number of these applicants had their jobs terminated within a short period after arriving in Malta. The individuals went to Identity Malta with documentation in a bid to find a new job, when the officials noted similar characteristics in the way the TCN workers were employed, their work conditions and the way their employment had been terminated.

From the investigation, it emerged that the individuals had paid thousands of euros to come and work in Malta, and were assisted by individuals both in Malta and abroad.

These individuals assisting the workers had to prepare the necessary documentation for the prospective employees to eventually come and work as cleaners or room attendants.

The prospective workers, mostly from the Philippines, with the exception of two who were from Nepal, had made contact with agents - who were of the same nationality and held a work and residence permit in Malta – in a bid to come and work here.

The majority of the TCN workers paid €4,000 as processing fees. They signed a contract in the Philippines stating that they would work as cleaners or room attendants once in Malta.

The work conditions included a €719 monthly wage, free accommodation, medical assistance and work benefits according to Maltese law. However, when they arrived, they found different conditions and a new contract was signed, which had fewer working hours than agreed upon and did not pay the minimum wage.

The workers who were deceived entered into debts to be able to come to Malta, were left with no option other than signing the new contract and were threatened with losing everything and being sent back to their home country.

The TCNs were then employed in different jobs, for which many had no qualifications. 

They worked Sundays and public holidays but were not paid the double rate as established by law, and were paid much less.

They did not have any benefits and were “fined” €20 if they did not report for work. They were allegedly not entitled to sick leave during their first six months.

The investigation eventually showed that these agents were engaged by JF Services Cleaning Limited.

All agents are facing separate criminal charges.

AG asks for up to 30 years imprisonment

The prosecution in the Bill of Indictment accused the woman in her personal capacity, as well as a secretary, a human resource manager, and a legal representative of JF Security Services, JF Group, JF Services Cleaning Ltd, JF Staffing Ltd, JF Security and Consultancy Services, JF Logistics Ltd, JF Services Ltd, JF Investments, of trafficking people for exploitation in the provision of services with the involvement of an organised crime group.

The Attorney General requested six to 30 years imprisonment and a fine ranging between €20,000 and €2,000,000.

In her preliminary pleas, the accused raised a number of issues including that she should be given the status of a whistleblower under the Protection of the Whistleblower Act after having given an external disclosure to the Ombudsman.

The Criminal Court had rejected a number of preliminary pleas and abstained from taking cognisance of others, and observed that the plea relating to the request of being a whistleblower could not be treated as a preliminary plea.

In November 2025, the defence presented the declaration that the accused made to the Ombudsman on the basis of which the latter issued a recommendation.

Police inspector John Spiteri told the Criminal Court that the directors of the company where the accused worked were arraigned in court together with some recruiters of the trafficked victims after confirming that the declaration presented in court was indeed one made by the accused before the Ombudsman.

He also explained that he did not feel the woman should be arraigned with the others, given her statements to the authorities. He recalled that the woman had released a statement wherein she explained at great length what was happening and which Spiteri described as “almost amounting to an admission”.

Spiteri confirmed that the woman assisted in the investigation and gave them information, which enabled the investigators to take action against others. Without her assistance, they would not have managed to solve the case. The information provided was corroborated with digital evidence and testimonies from the alleged victims.

'She succumbed to pressure'

The police inspector also said that the woman was arraigned since she was vicariously liable due to the fact that she was the company secretary. But the woman followed instructions, and for the investigator, she was not the mastermind.

“She told her directors that what they were doing was wrong, but she succumbed to pressure,” Spiteri told the Criminal Court, noting that they had already explored the possibility of granting the accused whistleblower status. However, it was concluded that they could not, since she had already been arraigned in court.

The woman admitted the charge brought against her on December 4, 2025.

The defence requested the Criminal Court to take into considerations the provisions of the Protection of the Whistleblower Act which allows for the exemption of punishment.

The Criminal Court then analysed the Protection of Whistleblower Act, which provides for proceedings that allow employees both in the public and private sector to reveal information of improper practices either by their principals or other employees and for these whistleblowers to be protected against any action following such revelations.

The Criminal Court, noting that it is possibly the first time deciding such a matter, referred to the definition of whistleblower under the Act, which is defined as “any employee who discloses to a whistleblowing reporting officer or a whistleblowing reports unit, as the case may be, whether it qualifies as a protected disclosure or not under this Act”.

It then referred to improper practice as defined under the law.

Analysing the records of the case, the Criminal Court observed that from an early stage the accused explained what was going on and that she had already drawn the attention of her directors. She also explained what was happening with the contracts at length.

The Criminal Court also took note of the exchange with the Whistleblowing unit within the Ombudsman’s office regarding external disclosures. The court observed that it had been determined that the accused could release an external disclosure since the facts of the case “relate to the improper practice alleged are serious” in terms of the Act.

The Ombudsman determined that the sworn statement released by the accused fell within the definition of improper practice and referred the disclosure to the police for further investigation.

The court observed that there was no doubt that the Ombudsman considered the evidence given by the accused as external disclosure.

It also observed that had the information given before the criminal proceedings against the woman not been initiated, she would have been granted whistleblowing status.

However, in this case, the disclosure happened afterwards.

The court observed that the legislator gave wide discretion to the court to consider the particular circumstances of the case, that after finding a whistleblower guilty, it could either decrease the punishment or exempt them from punishment according to the Act.

The Criminal Court exempted the woman from punishment after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the substantial number of victims, their suffering and trauma, and after having seen that with the help of the accused, the police closed the investigation and arraigned all the directors and agents involved in the trafficking of individuals.

“This court will exempt the accused from punishment to send a message to society that those who reveal information under the Protection of the Whistleblower Act will find the help of the courts,” Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera said.

The Criminal Court also sent a report to the President of the Republic in line with the Act to explain its reasoning as to why the woman was exempted from punishment.

Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera presided over the Criminal Court.

AG lawyer Kevin Valletta prosecuted, while defence lawyers Joe Giglio and Michaela Giglio appeared for the woman. 

The publication of the woman's name has been banned by court order.