There was no face value evidence linking two former Progress Press officials, currently prosecuted for fraud and money laundering, to any commissions or financial irregularities, a magistrate declared on Friday.
Managing director Michel Rizzo and ex financial controller Claude Licari had always acted in their capacity as company officials when signing documents linking them to the alleged fraud stemming from a funding application submitted to Malta Enterprise in 2013, the court declared.
Following lawyers’ submissions last week and upon a face value assessment of the evidence put forward so far by the prosecution, Magistrate Natasha Galea Sciberras concluded that while Rizzo had no case whatsoever to answer in his personal capacity, Licari had a case to answer only in respect of the alleged breach of accountancy laws.
The court drew a clear distinction between the personal and vicarious liability of each of the officials, as well as the corporate criminal responsibility of Progress Press Ltd.
Both Rizzo and Licari had a case to answer as company officials, the court said, rejecting arguments that the former financial controller had always obeyed instructions.
The prosecution, however, did confirm that Licari had never received any commissions, nor had he been aware of commissions pocketed by third parties through the purchase of machinery from Kasco.
Yet, his name had featured in emails linked to the deal, thus implying that he was aware of the purchase figures, the Malta Enterprise grant as well as the value of consumables included therein.
He also knew of the credit notes system in place between Progress Press and Kasco, observed the court, thus concluding that Licari, like Rizzo, had a case to answer through vicarious liability as a former company official.
As for Progress Press itself, the court took note of submissions put forward by its lawyer, Joseph Giglio when arguing that the charges against the company were time-barred.
Court says prescription issue did not fall within its competence
Giglio had argued that since punishment in terms of those charges consisted of a fine, then the charges were liable to a two-year term of prescription.
But Magistrate Galea Sciberras pointed out that the solution to this issue was to be found in a 1984 judgment delivered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Police vs Dr Joseph Cassar Galea.
Quoting extensively from that judgment, the court adopted the line taken there in concluding that the issue of prescription did not fall within its competence as a court of criminal inquiry.
Unlike a “court of trial” its function was not to decide upon the merits but to collect and conserve the evidence, compiling a record that could eventually serve as a basis for trial, read the decree.
Moreover, the charges at hand fell beyond the competence of the Magistrates’ Court and in any case, the evidence put forward so far was sufficient for Progress Press to stand trial, the magistrate concluded.
In light of such considerations, the court wrapped up its 21-page decree by declaring that Rizzo had no case to answer in personal capacity, Licari had a case to answer limitedly for allegedly breaching the laws of his profession.
Both had a case to answer as company officials, along with Progress Press itself.
The case continues in July.
Lawyer Joe Giglio assisted Rizzo and Progress Press. Lawyer Roberto Montalto assisted Licari. Inspector Joseph Xerri together with AG lawyers Sean Xerri De Caro and Andrea Zammit prosecuted.