A magistrate warned prosecutors on Wednesday that she viewed prosecutors as unduly dragging out a money laundering case involving an official of Pilatus Bank, and undermining the judicial process. 

The case is against Claude-Ann Sant Fournier, former money laundering reporting officer at the now-shuttered bank. She was arraigned in September last year. A month earlier,  Pilatus Bank was fined a record €4.9 million for a “serious and systematic failure” to follow anti-money laundering laws.

What was meant to be a lengthy court hearing on Wednesday, purposely scheduled to allow the prosecution to produce as much substantial evidence as possible, fizzled out into a short sitting taken up by two brief testimonies.

“This manner of prosecution is not worthy of any criminal process…It’s not on for the prosecution to be handled in this way,” Magistrate Donatella Frendo said, visibly annoyed at such time-wasting. 

“I allotted a full sitting and then you come here with few witnesses,” said the magistrate, pointing out that this was not the first such occurrence and that meanwhile, those facing criminal proceedings awaited justice.

It’s as though you’re squeezing and squeezing, trying to get rabbits out of hats. We’re not David Copperfield here!- Magistrate tells prosecutors

Moreover, witnesses summoned in past sittings appeared to have little information that was significant to the prosecution’s case, she added. 

“It’s as though you’re squeezing and squeezing, trying to get rabbits out of hats. We’re not David Copperfield here!” the magistrate remarked, addressing the AG lawyers handling the prosecution. 

The court had purposely allocated a two-hour sitting on Wednesday to mark progress in the case. But at the scheduled time, the prosecution first summoned IT expert Martin Bajada to produce more digital copies of documents gathered in the €7.5 million magisterial inquiry into alleged financial crimes at the now-shuttered bank. 

Those copies had been requested by the defence. 

The second witness was Maryanne Scicluna, former chief officer, supervision, at the MFSA, who had testified at the magisterial inquiry and was summoned to testify again via video conference. 

Scicluna was a former member of the supervisory council, which then morphed into the regulatory committee, and also a member of the executive management committee at the Authority. 

“Could you please explain the role of the supervisory council?”asked AG lawyer Ramon Bonett Sladden. 

“You should know that, rather than ask the witness,” interrupted Magistrate Frendo Dimech, pointing out that that entity was set up in terms of law. 

The witness in fact confirmed that, explaining that the council was a statutory body which took decisions on licensing as well as enforcement measures in respect of companies under the umbrella of MFSA. 

She also explained that the joint financial stability board was made up of representatives from the MFSA, the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry.

That board was tasked with discussing aspects which were deemed of interest to those three entities. 

The witness was then asked about a CD containing documents which she had presented when testifying at the magisterial inquiry.

“Who compiled those documents?” asked the prosecuting lawyer. 

“It’s been quite a while and offhand I don’t recall exactly what it contained. I do know that we were compiling documents to hand over to the police. They were documents in possession of the MFSA. But it’s been some three years or so and I honestly cannot recall those documents,” Scicluna said.

One particular document was a memorandum dated September 17, 2013.

“I just wish the witness to confirm her signature on the document,” said Bonett Sladden. 

But there again, the prosecution appeared to have got it wrong. 

Since the witness was testifying via video conferencing, it was rather difficult to provide her with a close-up view of the document in the lawyer’s hand.

Efforts to place the document as close as possible to the wall-mounted camera proved futile. 

“The prosecution could have simply requested court permission in advance to scan and send the relative documents to the witness prior to today’s sitting,” pointed out Magistrate Frendo Dimech. 

Hoping to get some relevant information from the witness, the prosecution attempted a final question. 

“Do you recall anything about that document?”

“There were many minutes of the supervisory council about Pilatus. It’s difficult to remember all those from 2013…..Perhaps others members of the council currently in Malta could confirm that,” suggested the witness.

And on that note, the prosecution declared that it had no further questions for the witness.

As questioning moved over to the defence’s side, lawyer Stefano Filletti asked whether the MFSA had carried out a due diligence exercise in respect of the bank owner and its UBOs. (Ultimate beneficial owners)

Scicluna confirmed that there was a standard process of due diligence and enhanced due diligence was also undertaken.

In fact, the MFSA had engaged an external company.

Asked whether there had been any adverse comments in respect of Ali Sadr as the bank owner, the witness replied, “I don’t recall word for word but the final outcome was for the MFSA to greenlight bank licence.”

Pressed further on this matter, Scicluna insisted, “I don’t remember exactly the contents of the report but the MFSA took everything into account and proceeded to issue the bank licence.”

“But was the MFSA happy to do so?” pressed on Filletti. 

“I assume that when all was considered once it decided to proceed with the licence, then the MFSA felt satisfied to do so.”

She also confirmed that due diligence checks extended not just to the bank’s shareholders but also to its directors, first and foremost Ali Sadr.

As for Sant Fournier, the bank’s anti-money laundering officer too, she was vetted both as former bank director and as anti-money laundering officer. 

Asked by the AG lawyer about the time interval between the initial due diligence ans the enhanced due diligence, the witness said that they were normally done during the same period. 

All MFSA companies were subject to ongoing due diligence. 

In this case, enhanced due diligence was carried out after certain allegations emerged. 

The video link thus ended, but it was not yet over. 

The court requested the prosecution to explain what other witnesses it intended to summon at future sittings. 

But the lawyer could not state offhand the names of those expected to testify, requesting instead a lengthy adjournment to enable it to better prepare its case. 

Filletti intervened, arguing that the prosecution had a duty to summon all witnesses in favour or against the accused and one of those, Antoniella Gauci , could easily be summoned. No criminal charges had been issued against Gauci and therefore she could be produced as a witness, pointed out Filletti.

“Other directors are faced with an arrest warrant. But Gauci probably no. So she must be summoned. If they don’t, I will ask for her myself,” the defence lawyer said.

In light of such circumstances the magistrate granted the prosecution one week to furnish a list of all its witnesses.

'This will drag out for years at this pace' - Magistrate

“I’m imploring you to look at the bigger picture. This will drag on for years at this pace. You can’t afford it if you truly believe in your own case,” came the Magistrate’s final word to the prosecution.

The case continues. 

Lawyers Stefano Filletti, Maurice Meli and Kathleen Calleja Grima are counsel to Sant Fournier. Lawyers Stefan Camilleri and Roberto Cassar assisted Fabio Axisa who was appointed as competent person to represent Pilatus Bank.