Proceedings for contempt of court are taken when a court order is ignored. Such behaviour is considered as lacking respect to the authority of the court and, ultimately, contrary to the public interest.
Proceedings against the offender are taken by the registrar of courts following a request by a person having a juridical interest (in this case a duty), such as the attorney general, under chapter 90 of the Laws of Malta. Contempt of court can lead to a fine or to detention (imprisonment).
In order to analyse these questions, let us remember that the Egrant report, which was handed over to former prime minister Joseph Muscat in July 2018, but only made public by the opposition in December 2019, concluded that no proof was submitted that the company Egrant belonged to the disgraced former prime minister or to members of his family.
This was not magistrate (today judge) Aaron Bugeja’s only conclusion, however, it seems that both the perceived victim (Muscat) and the commissioner of police failed to follow up certain vital aspects of the Egrant report to their logical conclusion.
A victim of slander would normally seek to find out who was responsible for trying to damage his/her reputation. If the victim is a sitting prime minister, with all the powers which come with the office, then no stone would be left unturned until the truth prevailed but, strangely, not in this case. The abridged conclusion was flaunted but the details were ignored.
In the public interest, it would be relevant to revisit certain aspects of the report which remain in legal limbo.
In the report, the magistrate, in no uncertain terms, ordered the commissioner of police to investigate Karl Cini, of Nexia BT fame, for various discrepancies in his sworn deposition which, prima facie, could constitute perjury. Perjury can carry a punishment of from seven months to two years imprisonment.
The magistrate noted that, whereas Cini stated under oath that he set up only three companies in Panama, the forensic experts Harbinson Forensics determined that he had set up another company (Trade Investments Global Corp) in Panama and not in the British Virgin Islands, as Cini stated.
The magistrate further noted that Cini had stated under oath that he only set up four companies in the British Virgin Islands (Comerco, Durellie, Real Trade Investments and Willerby), whereas the forensic experts Harbinson Forensics asserted that he omitted to mention (by design?) various other companies (Colson, Selson, Lester, SPX, Blue Sea, Torbridge or Berdil).
To further compound Cini’s lack of clarity, he denied ever having received a DHL with various compromising documents from Mirzella Tunon (agent of Mossack Fonseca fame), including damning documents of trust dated February 16 and 24, 2017 signed by Ricardo Samaniego, declarations dated May 25, 2017 issued by ATC Administrators Inc., signed by Edilberto Reyes and Olga Londono, and a registered agent certification, signed by Josette Roquebert.
We have a court order that Karl Cini should be investigated for perjury- Franco Vassallo
The magistrate noted that this information, including the confirmation that these documents were, in fact, sent via DHL, results from an e-mail which, it seems, was never rebutted by Cini through an e-mail reply (as a normal person would do). It is worth noting that a DHL package can easily be traced and its receipt confirmed by following the airway bill.
The magistrate ordered the commissioner of police to further investigate Cini on the conclusions of yet another forensic accounts expert, Miroslava Milenovic, concerning “orders for transfer from BTI Management Client bank (BOV) account”.
This is not rocket science. We have a court order given by a magistrate to the commissioner of police that Cini should be investigated for perjury on various discrepancies in his sworn testimony in the Egrant inquiry. These investigations could easily lead to a conclusion to the Egrant question, if carried out diligently, professionally and in good faith. All the evidence needed and most of the investigative work is complete and available.
The question is, did the commissioner follow up on the court order? We know that Cini has not been arraigned on these charges but on other matters relating to money laundering and other financial crimes, following inquiries concerning Keith Schembri.
The commissioner of police can only defend his position if he unequivocally states that such an investigation has been carried out and, in his opinion, Cini has no charges to answer for, notwithstanding the magistrate’s prima facie conclusions and the supporting expert evidence presented.
The commissioner of police cannot expect the public to believe that he is still investigating the matter nearly two and a half years after publication, especially once all the evidence (including forensic experts’ reports) is available in the Egrant report, while selective arraignments were made on other parties. That would be perceived as insulting and puerile.
If the commissioner of police has not followed up the court orders in good faith, then the attorney general and the registrar of courts are legally obliged to commence contempt of court proceedings against the commissioner of police.
If the attorney general and the registrar of courts fail to do so, then it would not be unreasonable to believe that the legal system is defunct, the judiciary rendered toothless and the rule of law moribund.
No public announcement has been traced that the commissioner of police, the attorney general or the registrar of courts have followed up on the court orders with regard to Cini.
Incidentally, the magistrate in the Egrant report also ordered the commissioner of police to investigate Jonathan Ferris and Maria Effimova for perjury.
The commissioner of police diligently followed this order and arraigned Ferris and charged Effimova in November 2020. So why not Cini?
Franco Vassallo, lawyer