The Attorney General, the police and the FIAU have all objected after being summoned to testify in a double jeopardy case instituted by the directors of Zenith Finance,  who were accused of money laundering after their company had already settled a hefty administrative fine.

Matthew Pace and Lorraine Falzon have gone to the constitutional court to challenge criminal charges issued against them in their personal capacity and also against the company.

Their lawyers are striving to eke out information as to how the court charges were issued, especially after a police inspector testified that Pace and Falzon had been charged in their personal capacity even though “from day one” the prosecution knew that they had made no personal illicit gain.

Their defence lawyer, Edward Gatt, demanded accountability, stressing in court that “someone must eventually shoulder responsibility”.

The matter was again brought up during a hearing in separate proceedings where the directors claimed that their fundamental rights were breached because after being fined €38,750 by the FIAU in 2018 for administrative shortcomings, the company, formerly known as MFSP Financial Management Ltd, was criminally charged over “identical facts.”

“Yet, in those criminal proceedings we experienced a strategy whereby there appeared to be a superhuman effort to keep that issue under wraps, ”claimed Gatt when making submissions before Madam Justice Miriam Hayman who is presiding over the double jeopardy case.

Flurry of objections

The court received a flurry of applications by a number of persons raising objections after being summoned to testify by the applicants’ lawyers.

The AG cited professional privilege when objecting to testify in the double jeopardy case instituted by Zenith Finance directors.

Gatt explained that Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg's presence in the criminal case against Zenith was “amplified” by the fact that charges had been issued in the name of “the Republic of Malta” rather than “the police.”

Since it was the AG’s prerogative to decide how charges were to be issued, then it was for her to explain why and whether she had been aware of the fact that the persons charged had previously been fined by the FIAU, he argued.

Secondly, since a police inspector testified that investigators had traced no money trail to the accused but had nonetheless pressed charges against Pace and Falzon because of being “directed” to do so, the AG needed to answer about that too.

“So I want Victoria Buttigieg to tell us who gave that direction. Was it herself? If not, and that would be even worse, she must tell us who.”

There appeared to be a certain urge “for money crimes to be amplified,”  said the lawyer, insisting “it was essential for Buttigieg to testify”.

State lawyer Fiorella Fenech Vella countered that the defence could have sought that information before the Magistrates’ Court presiding over the money laundering proceedings.

This double jeopardy lawsuit did not go into the merits of that criminal case and besides, the AG was precluded from testifying under the legal professional privilege.

Asked whether the facts underpinning both the criminal charges and the FIAU fine were identical, Fenech Vella replied that “they were not the same” since the FIAU investigations took a different angle to those by the police.

Moreover, criminal charges stemmed from an inquiry where the magistrate “had heard everything, including the FIAU” and the AG had acted upon those conclusions, Fenech Vella argued.

Two inspectors involved in the money laundering investigations who had prepared a report based on internal documents were also summoned as witnesses.

FIAU officials had also filed an application, arguing they could not be asked to testify on the grounds of confidentiality.

One of those officials had testified at the compilation of evidence and ended up spending some fifteen minutes in custody for contempt of court after refusing to divulge the names of two individuals who did business with Zenith Finance.

That episode was relayed to Madam Justice Hayman by Gatt who, on that occasion, had himself named those individuals as Keith Schembri and former Allied Group managing director Adrian Hillman.

Moreover, FIAU representatives had also testified at the Daphne Caruana Galizia public inquiry, the lawyer pointed out.

However, the lawyer representing the FIAU argued that there was no jurisprudence on this confidentiality issue.

Gatt begged to differ, pointing out that when there is an alleged violation of principles of natural justice, the court has the right to order such witnesses to testify.

The court is expected to decide upon these requests after hearing further submissions and after copies of documents from the criminal proceedings have been filed by the court registrar who was to do so within two weeks.

The case continues.

Lawyer Mark Vassallo is also assisting the applicants.