‘Money laundering trials set up to fail’

As questions continue to be raised about the millions in assets frozen for those accused of money laundering in the wake of the hospitals’ inquiry, experts consulted by The Shift pointed to grave concerns on the process, with a leading academic saying “the case is set up to fail”.

Those accused last week had assets frozen to the tune of €30 million, with people wondering whether it actually meant the individuals had that amount of money in their accounts.

The simple answer is “no”, according to lawyer Edward Debono. He told The Shift that the amount was set according to the evidence of transactions the magistrate had come across.

“The magistrate must have found a lot of transfers passed to various people showing this amount of money was defrauded. It could be €30 million or possibly more,” Debono said.

“Otherwise, why would she distinguish between €1 million or €30 million or €32 million or €40 million?” he added.

Most of the accused had €30 million assets frozen, with some less and some more. David Meli, for example, had €32 million of assets frozen while lawyer Deborah Anne Chappell had one of the highest amounts – €40 million.

Debono pointed out that the evidence had not yet been extrapolated from the 78 boxes in court. “We do not yet know the evidence there is.”

An academic who is an expert in the field confirmed the answers lay in the boxes of evidence.

“We assume, because we have not seen the evidence yet, that the prosecution considered that the highest amount those accused took, or what they could prove, amounted to €30 million,” he said.

Of more concern, he pointed out that the trials were set up for failure.

“Money laundering is very difficult to prosecute. And we have no experience. We don’t have a single successful case of prosecuting money laundering,” he pointed out.

He said cases have been filed against individuals to impress the FATF, especially when Malta were greylisted, to give the impression the country was acting on money laundering.

“If we look at this case, we have three young prosecutors facing more than two dozen devilish criminal lawyers who will eat them alive. The prosecutors are just lambs for the slaughter,” he added, saying he was convinced no convictions would result from this process.

Questions are being asked about the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner. Although the Attorney General would usually lead the prosecution, Victoria Buttigieg was nowhere to be seen during the arraignments last week.

“Where is the Attorney General? True, she’s not competent to handle such a case, and that is how the government protects the criminals. But the AG should be in court, at the very least representing the office. She’s supposed to be the leading expert,” the professor said.

“In a nutshell, all this is set up to fail.”

On Tuesday, Franco Debono, who was defending DF Advocates and their owners in the case, stalled proceedings for six hours on a frivolous claim.

“There will be more of these claims as we go along. Remember Brian Tonna and the ‘loan’ from Keith Schembri (in another money laundering case related to the Panama Papers)? As if Tonna needed Schembri’s loan. But these are the kind of arguments you usually see,” he added.

And with those leading the prosecution being inexperienced, and with a track record of botching cases, the road ahead is challenging at the very least.

“We have already started to see mistakes by the prosecution, like charging one company instead of another. This is not about experimenting, about gaining experience in prosecuting money laundering crimes. If you’re not sure, you don’t go ahead,” he said.

The professor pointed out that if the prosecution loses, the individuals cannot be sued again. “Instead they get a certificate of innocence because of our incompetence and they get to enjoy the proceeds of their crime.”

He points to the Muscats, travelling on diplomatic passports while their assets are frozen. “How can they be allowed to travel, let alone on diplomatic passports? This is where you see it’s wrong – they are still being protected by the State when the State is supposed to be holding them accountable.”