Extradition proceedings against a man allegedly linked to a $50 million racket defrauding the US Navy are set to continue following an appeal filed by the Attorney General.

Frank Salvatore Rafaraci, the 68-year-old Italian-American national born in New York, has been at the centre of an extradition saga played out before the Maltese courts since his arraignment on September 27.

He was arrested after arriving on a brief visit to Malta in a joint operation between local and US authorities who are seeking his return to face prosecution before the District Court of Columbia over a raft of charges allegedly linking him to a $50 million racket defrauding the US Navy.

Rafaraci’s team of lawyers contested his arrest and the duty magistrate, presiding over the arraignment, discharged him from arrest while adjourning the case for hearing on October 4.

That decision set in motion a series of judicial proceedings which had a “domino effect” leading up to a judgment delivered on Friday by the Court of Criminal Appeal presided over by Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti. 

The Attorney General (AG) had interpreted the decision by the duty magistrate upon arraignment as effectively declining the request for extradition in a definitive manner.

Consequently, the AG filed an urgent application before the Criminal Court requesting Rafaraci’s re-arrest.

However, that request was dismissed by Mr Justice Aaron Bugeja, prompting an appeal by the AG.

The matter landed before Mr Justice Grixti who observed that the AG was not at fault when interpreting the first decision by the duty magistrate as a definitive decision about the extradition issue. 

Although the choice of words by the first court had been “an unhappy” one, remarked Grixti, the magistrate’s decision was not to be interpreted as declining extradition. 

“When the first court set a date for hearing after having declined the request it was thereby making it vey clear that the proceedings were not yet determined,” said Grixti.

That court was well aware that, as presided, it was not competent to hear extradition cases and had therefore sent the records to be duly assigned accordingly.

This meant that the AG’s appeal was null and void since it had been entered on extradition proceedings which had not yet been concluded, said the judge, citing the relative provision of the Extradition Act which did not allow such an appeal. 

Consequently, the court ordered the records to be sent back immediately to the Magistrates’ Court competent to decide upon extradition requests.

Meanwhile, Rafaraci is to remain “in the same state as declared by the first court” before the AG’s appeal, declared Grixti, meaning that the man is not to be rearrested unless there is a request to that effect before the magistrate who will be presiding over the extradition proceedings.