The magistrate heading the “voluminous” Vitals inquiry did not direct the prosecution to “investigate further” but to “charge these persons with crimes,” the prosecution stressed on Thursday.

Attorney General lawyer Francesco Refalo was making the point when arguing that all those charged accordingly had a case to answer. 

The inquiring magistrate had issued “clear directions,” Refalo said when money laundering proceedings against former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, his former chief of staff Keith Schembri and former minister Konrad Mizzi resumed.

Prosecutors allege that the former prime minister and 13 other defendants took bribes and committed acts of fraud and money laundering as part of the Muscat-led government’s project to award Vitals Global Healthcare a 30-year deal to run three state hospitals.

The deal was annulled last year by a civil court on the basis of fraud. The decision was confirmed on appeal, with the superior court declaring that there was “collusion” between the concessionaire and top public figures. 

All defendants are pleading not guilty to the charges. 

Most of Thursday’s sitting was taken up by testimonies concerning the cancer-treating cyclotron project which, according to the inquiry conclusions, did not exist. 

Lawyers assisting companies involved in that project, namely Technoline Ltd, Mtrace Ltd and Gateway Solutions Ltd, summoned witnesses to prove that works were done at the Malta Life Sciences Park at San Ġwann to get that cancer-treatment project underway.

Representatives for a service provider, a fire safety company, a shipping company, a freight forwarder as well as a construction worker gave an overview of the work done. 

A ‘bunker’-like facility at level -1 in an area of the Life Sciences Park was purposely built to house the equipment that was the crux of the project originally conceived in 2009. 

Two 40-foot-high containers of equipment were shipped from Ravenna to the Malta Freeport in November 2017. 

They were forwarded to the Life Sciences Park and “boxes” of cargo were unloaded in an area of those premises. 

But the project was eventually “aborted” and no permit for the installation of the machinery was issued. 

A representative for the Radiation Protection Board said that they inspected the structure prepared for the cyclotron project and engaged a foreign expert to carry out further inspections in 2017.

But they never saw the cyclotron itself. 

“The cyclotron was still in boxes… The project stopped,” said the witness, explaining that he was under the impression that works were still ongoing for the project to take off. 

Thursday’s session ended with submissions by the prosecution on whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence for the court to declare that the accused had a case to answer. 

Muscat’s lawyers informed the court that they were not contesting that, but only to ensure that the proceedings would be concluded expediently. 

Most of the other persons charged, including Schembri and Mizzi likewise did not contest the prima facie stage, declaring that they would bow to the court’s decision. 

Prosecuting lawyer Francesco Refalo ran the court through a money trail that allegedly linked the persons charged to fraud, pointing out that certain funds meant for the hospitals concession served to purchase company shares.

He insisted that evidence showed that one of those contesting the prima facie, namely Taomac Ltd, had acted as a “smokescreen” and that “there was more than prima facie” as far as that company was concerned. 

Taomac Ltd was facing money laundering charges over a “suspicious” €62,500 transaction. But lawyer Veronique Dalli said the prosecution simply mentioned “suspicion” and nothing else when referring to charges against Taomac. 

And the company’s name had only featured once in the Vitals report drawn up by the experts, including two foreign forensic financial analysts, who never “bothered” to send for the company’s representatives for an explanation about that transaction. 

Nor had investigators searched the company’s offices or seized any documents. 

Yet they concluded that Taomac Ltd had acted “as a front” simply because it had transferred its shareholding capital at the same price. 

The company, incorporated in 2012, had a business plan with Saint James Hospital for a cyclotron project. 

But Saint James Hospital subsequently pulled out of the plan after sensing a “lack of transparency.”

Taomac was asked to move out of the project by Malta Enterprise after the company itself revealed in reply to due diligence questions that it was facing some proceedings in Italy over some report about the illegal dumping of materials. 

The company was later cleared, stressed Dalli. 

Those €62,500 represented the share capital which Taomac was instructed to hold on to by Malta Enterprise until another interested purchaser materialized, said the lawyer. 

Taomac was totally extraneous to VGH, argued Dalli. “This is immensely dangerous,” added the lawyer who insisted that Taomac had no case to answer. 

The case continues next week.