Two police officers who stand accused of receiving undue extra duty payments pleaded not guilty to fraud on Thursday.

Police sergeant Alexander Schembri, 56, from Xghajra and police constable Joseph Debrincat, 64, from St Venera, were charged in the wake of an investigation by the financial crimes department which started in November 2021.

That was triggered by checks by the Internal Audit and Investigations Department into payments in excess of €20,000 for extra duties made to officers throughout 2019. Nine officers were identified within various police departments including the Rapid Intervention Unit, the Criminal Investigations Department and the Criminal Records Office.

An anonymous letter in August 2019 flagged similar suspicions with respect to officers stationed at Valletta, said Inspector Christian Abela who testified on Thursday when proceedings against Schembri and Debrincat got underway.

The witness explained that police duties were classified under three categories.

Officers worked a regular 40-hour week with overtime and extra hours.

Extra duties covered third-party events and activities, such as when a police officer was needed to oversee some services to a private residence or to patrol at mass events.

When those duties were carried out outside work hours, the fee charged to the third party was paid to the officer performing the extra duties.

When such duties were done during work hours, they were classified as revenue duties and the sum paid by the third party was owed to the corps, rather than the officer tasked with the duty.

Invoices for extra and revenue duties were marked differently so as to enable the salaries department to issue payment either to the officer personally or the corps respectively.

Six out of the nine officers identified by investigators turned out to have done nothing wrong.

They had overlapping extra duties because of invoicing mistakes, such as errors in dates.

However, two officers out of those nine presented a different scenario. A breakdown of their hours of work and the amounts paid indicated their intention to get extra duties.

They had even appeared to change their shifts to get more extra duties or got paid for duties when payment was owed to the corps.

Asked to clarify, Abela cited a couple of examples.

On one occasion Schembri’s records showed three overlapping extra duties.

As for Debrincat, he had altered his watch, working from 5am to 1pm when the Isle of MTV festival was scheduled, getting paid for extra duty which ought to have been revenue duty instead.

Under interrogation, Debrincat was unable to answer questions and could not supply any information about his regular shift.

On the other hand, Schembri had first tried to explain the overlapping but as the interrogation progressed, one explanation appeared to contradict another, said the inspector.

During the arraignment both officers denied any wrongdoing.

Schembri was separately charged with misappropriation, complicity in fraud, making a false declaration in a document for public use and supplying false or incomplete information.

When compared to other officers’ shifts, details in respect of the two accused “didn’t make sense,” said Abela.

Alteration of shift hours for financial benefit 

Whereas other officers assigned duties at the Valletta district registered €500, €400 or even €100 in extra duties throughout the year, Schembri and Debrincat’s figure stood at around €2000.

While other officers stuck to their shifts, in the case of Debrincat, hours seemingly changed so as to accommodate extra duties within his shift.

Moreover, at the time, Schembri was in charge of detailing duties to other officers and himself, always stressing that “there was a lot to do” and that there were many extra duties to handle.

No Standard Operating Procedures 

Under cross-examination by Schembri’s lawyer, Joe Giglio, the witness could not recall any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) at the time as to how such police duties were to be assigned or paid.

“So police were in the dark as to what to do,” remarked the lawyer, pointing out that police officers had no option but to carry out extra or revenue duties.

Moreover, the Valletta police district was one that was faced with the largest number of requests for extra duties.

For sake of clarification, the lawyer cited an example of an ordinary everyday occurrence when such extra duties are called into play.

A private citizen might apply for extra police duties during delivery of furniture to his home or office, paying for a minute number of hours, namely three hours.

Although the rendering of that service, namely the furniture delivery, might take far less than that, the third party would still pay for three hours even though the police officer would have moved on to other duties once the delivery was completed.

The three-hour extra duty slot could well overlap with the officer’s tour of duty.

But once the officer was entitled to get paid for three hours, namely the full amount paid by the third party, why should the officer get anything less than that, simply because of the overlap? questioned Giglio.

“We checked that. But it wasn’t just that,” answered the witness.

“Although the service was offered at a minimum of three hours, that did not mean that the officer was entitled to three hours payment.”

Questions then turned to other extra duties requests frequently encountered by Valletta police, namely providing escort to the Monte di Pieta’, while valuables were transferred to the Central Bank.

That was a trip that took merely fifteen minutes or so, pointed out Giglio.

“Yes. But we did not include that,” came the reply.

“That [duty] takes 15 minutes but every officer who served as escort got paid for [the minimum] three hours,” retorted the lawyer.

Schembri had in fact flagged the Monte di Pieta’ issue by means of an email to former police commissioner Lawrence Cutajar, explaining the problem of having such extra duties overlapping with the normal tour of duty.

But the inspector who had investigated the case did not appear to be aware of that email.

“So you’re totally oblivious to it!” said Giglio.

The witness explained that after the anonymous letter, Schembri had been asked to explain how extra duties had been calculated and had in fact submitted a report to [senior officer] Ramon Mercieca.

The overlapping hours appeared to be only on paper but not in practice, said the witness.

“Are you aware of the problem with numbers?”pressed on the lawyer, with reference to the difficulty of catering for extra duties with a lack of police resources available.

“What was done to solve that problem of lack of resources? Did you simply target these two officers and pressed charges?”asked Giglio.

One of the accused was police union president

“The problem of resources did not affect this case,”rebutted the witness.

“Or is it because he [Schembri] was the president of the police union that most criticized Angelo Gafa’?!” went on the lawyer, questioning why other officers who got €500 or €400 for similar duties were not equally prosecuted.

“The fact that Schembri is president of a union would certainly not influence me,” answered the witness, pointing out that it was not only a matter of amounts but also the fact that Schembri had been the detailing officer.

Schembri had even refunded “to the last euro cent” the sum allegedly defrauded as calculated by the corps, doing so without prejudice to his claims to innocence.

“He wrote a cheque to the police commissioner,” finished off Giglio.

Yet the prosecution had still pressed charges in court.

Debrincat’s lawyer, Lennox Vella, questioned the fact that the constable had worked “by day.”

In common parlance, he was there at the disposition of the detailing officer to carry out duties assigned to him.

And there was nothing “strange” when Debrincat’s hours were changed at the time of the Isle of MTV event, given that that was the “biggest event” necessitating extra duties by Valletta police.

Superintendent James Grech, also prosecuting, pointed out that Debrincat was not the only officer working extra duties at that event.

But on their invoice, other officers had marked that as “revenue” thus payable to the corps.

Magistrate Nadine Lia, declared that there was sufficient prima facie evidence for the two officers to stand trial on indictment.

The case continues.

AG lawyers Etienne Savona and Maria Schembri also prosecuted.

Lawyer David Bonello was also legal counsel to Schembri.