Opinion: How the court legitimised fraud

The fraudulent scheme continued for so long that OLAF estimated that Claudette Abela Baldacchino and her co-accused defrauded the European Commission of €96,000

 

Labour MEP candidate Claudette Abela Baldacchino has been acquitted of fraud and misappropriation of funds – crimes that she was duty-bound to prevent as a public official.

Another five former mayors and councillors from both parties were also acquitted of the same charges.

Abela Baldacchino and her co-accused were indicted in January 2012.  It has taken over 12 years for Malta’s judicial system to reach its final decision, one as perverted as it is unbelievable.

OLAF, the EU anti-fraud office that initially brought the case, must be flabbergasted, first because of the eternity of the case and secondly because of its outcome.

Abela Baldacchino, while Qrendi deputy mayor, travelled to European destinations in business class as part of her local council work, funded by the European Commission.  But instead of claiming reimbursement for the actual price paid, she presented hand-written invoices indicating a higher price.

Together with her co-accused, she claimed €599 for flights which actually cost €466. The travel agency issued two separate invoices.  A computer-generated invoice recorded the actual price paid while a hand-written one recorded the full undiscounted price.

The scheme continued for so long that OLAF calculated that Abela Baldacchino and her co-accused defrauded the European Commission of €96,000.

OLAF learned of the abuse because of the large number of tickets issued, all for the same price of €599.

OLAF officers raided the Local Councils Association (LCA), seizing sales and purchase ledgers, bank statements, and e-mails. The travel agency KD Travel Services Ltd was also raided.

Abela Baldacchino and the others did not pocket the additional funds; the LCA did. But all were aware of what they were doing.  They were entitled to a refund of the actual price paid, not for the undiscounted ticket price.

Abela Baldacchino and the rest knew they were claiming far more than what was actually paid. There was no doubt this was a scheme intended to siphon more money from the EU Commission than was due.

Nobody in their right senses doubted that this was fraud, pure and simple. The case was clear-cut.

Yet the First Court took nine years to reach its decision.  It must have spent those years figuring out novel excuses to acquit the accused.

The court had all the evidence needed: invoices, e-mails, bank statements, witness statements.  All that OLAF work, all those raids, all those documents were worth nothing.

On 15 September 2021, Abela Baldacchino and her co-accused were cleared of fraud and misappropriation. Inexplicably, the court decided there was nothing wrong in stealing €96,000. It beggars belief.

Stunned by the bizarre court judgement, the police appealed. It took another three years for the Appeals court to reach its decision. Judge Aaron Bugeja, who shot to fame with his Egrant inquiry, reached the same bizarre conclusion –  Abela Baldacchino and her co-accused had done nothing wrong.

Read the judgement, tear your hair out, and despair at the contorted and circuitous arguments justifying his decision. You must wade through 14 pages of irrelevant legalese to get to the meat.

The bulk of the judgement explains that the Appeals Court doesn’t change the interpretation of the evidence considered by the First Court, doesn’t hear or decide the case from scratch, and that even if it doesn’t agree with the First Court, it still won’t change the conclusions reached.

The Judge was just preparing us for what was to come, quoting court decisions from 1957 and 1963 to justify his conclusion. More recent decisions by the Appeals Court contradict that argument.

So what were the Appeals Court’s excuses for acquitting? Abela Baldacchino and colleagues couldn’t be found guilty because they weren’t given clear explanations about how the reimbursement system worked.  So, does that justify presenting fake invoices?

Besides, the court argued that the defrauded cash was going to the LCA, and they needed the money.  So, does that justify cheating the European Commission?

“The Association and the councillors needed to see how to maximise their income potential for the Association to function and meet its (financial) obligations.  Anyway, a typical Maltese case of ‘Arte di Arrangiarsi‘ (the art of fudging it)”.  Believe it or not, those are the court’s exact words.

There were plenty more of the judge’s excuses on the accused’s behalf.  The LCA had asked for the advice of an auditor, and he didn’t point out any irregularities in the scheme.

The decisions were taken “within the context of the Association’s executive after due discussions.” So, because the auditor didn’t point it out, they couldn’t possibly figure out that it was wrong to present fake invoices and that they were cheating.

One of the funniest excuses was that the Maltese delegates “had adopted that modus operandi without any arguments.” According to the court, since there were no arguments, there was no crime.

Besides, the court argued, the Committee for the Regions hadn’t flagged any irregularities – probably because they hadn’t noticed they were being duped.

The court reasoned that since the accused were running their scheme openly, not in secret – in the cold light of day (fid-dawl tax-xemx) – there was no crime. So now, shooting somebody dead in public is no longer criminal?

There’s one final excuse that takes the biscuit. The accounts were tabled in parliament and nobody there raised any concerns about irregularities, the court noted.  “On the contrary, there were even words of praise for how the LCA operated”.

Apparently, being praised by MPs now exonerates you of all crime.  If that were the case we should stop wasting our time with the Steward Health Care prosecutions because Prime Minister Robert Abela dedicated speeches to praising the company to justify a scandalous deal.

“All these factors, therefore, led the accused to genuinely believe that their actions… were not in breach of the law,” the court concluded. That’s even more ludicrous. Is everybody who believes they haven’t committed a crime innocent?

No wonder it’s taken 12 years to come up with this final judgement. It’s priceless.

                           

Sign up to our newsletter

Stay in the know

Get special updates directly in your inbox
Don't worry we do not spam
                           
                               
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

22 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
12X
12X
15 days ago

You left out the final rationalisation – that they “didn’t benefit personally “.

Paul Pullicino
Paul Pullicino
15 days ago
Reply to  12X

Not quite a defence. Take the disability pensions case. Will the accused doctor former MP allegedly involved in pushing fake medical certificates get off because the prosecution cannot prove that he received any part of the stolen millions?

12X
12X
14 days ago
Reply to  Paul Pullicino

Unfortunately, in respect of certain Pilatus Bank officials, this was given as justification for non-prosecution and accepted in court.

In the case of the good Doctor, this is an excerpt from the last court hearing:

“A detailed list of the beneficiaries found on Grixti’s laptop, were grouped by their link to the different defendants, together with records of the amounts Grixti had received and the totals paid out by the Social Security Department to the fraudulent beneficiaries.”

So no doubt his lawyer will try this, but hopefully the case will be competently and robustly prosecuted.

12X
12X
14 days ago
Reply to  Paul Pullicino

https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/court_and_police/131121/grixti_kept_record_of_amounts_he_received_from_disability_benefits_racket_

However, as the magistrate specifically asked: whether the individuals who had mentioned Grixti also told the police that they had paid the money to him” I wouldn’t necessarily hold my breath, either.

Karistu
Karistu
12 days ago
Reply to  Paul Pullicino

There is more than one way to receive ill gotten funds. Maybe the money is already abroad and there are still some banks in the BVI that do not cooperate with investigations or the tax man.

Paul Berman
Paul Berman
15 days ago

These decisions just enable more crimes that wont be called crimes. I expect far better from the Judiciary

S. Camilleri
S. Camilleri
14 days ago
Reply to  Paul Berman

“Din il-Qorti, b’hekk tirrevedi s-sentenza tal-Qorti tal-Maġistrati billi tara jekk u safejn, bis-saħħa tal-provi li jkunu ġew miġjuba mill-partijiet u tal-argumenti legali dibattuti quddiem il-Qorti tal-Maġistrati, setgħetx dik il-Qorti legalment u raġonevolment tasal għall-konklużjoni milħuqa minnha fis-sentenza tagħha.” The judgement is replete with such verbosity. The problem arises when the appellate judgement is as unreasonable as the first judgement.

simon oosterman
simon oosterman
15 days ago

It is indeed priceless!

Godfrey Leone Ganado
Godfrey Leone Ganado
15 days ago

As I always say: the EU should block funds for Malta .

Karistu
Karistu
12 days ago

The Maltese taxpayer isn’t benefitting from those funds anyway. It’s all being used for personal frivolity.

E .Abela
E .Abela
15 days ago

I seriously give up on this country.

Mick
Mick
15 days ago

One day all the facades here in Mafialand will crumble and reveal a huge pile of shit that we have paid for time and time again and these thieves will be nowhere to be seen.

Paul Bonello
Paul Bonello
15 days ago

No wonder certain contorted conclusions in the Egrant Inquiry were reached. What load of BS!

S. Camilleri
S. Camilleri
14 days ago
Reply to  Paul Bonello

Precisely.

saviour mamo
saviour mamo
14 days ago

This judgement deserves a black mark and it will never be erased.

Manwel
Manwel
14 days ago

Nicely written and totally agree with your observations. Having read the linked court document, whilst barely understanding how one actor could have been absolved by either court, using the ‘reason’ that there was a lack of intent to defraud, doesn’t something else pop to the foreground? Isn’t it glaringly obvious that the fraud was committed by the government entity? Isn’t that infinitely worse than some individual political acolyte defrauding money? If I’m not going crazy when thinking this, then why wasn’t a fraud case brought against the association? If I, a simple human being, cannot depend on government to be, if not great, at least not criminal, how can I believe anything government says or does? And finally if a simple human has arrived to this conclusion, will not destructive anarchy be the only plausible conclusion for Malta?

Karl
Karl
14 days ago

Please please please, justice must be served.

JOSEPH GTEDESCO
JOSEPH GTEDESCO
13 days ago

BRILLIANT PROFESSOR.TRUST HAS BEEN COMPLETELY
ERODED.

Karistu
Karistu
12 days ago

He is remembered, among certain circles, as a first year law student who everyone swore, would never even graduate (not the brightest bulb, etc). However, he had grown some cunning. Lejber appointed him to make the Egrant case go away and all he has given them in return, is waffle. Because that, gentlemen, is all he is capable of. And let’s face it, he’s not about to bite the hand that feeds him, right?

makjavel
makjavel
9 days ago

So I can rob a bank in daylight , declare it as an income to the Tax Department , and go scott free?

Austin Sammut
Austin Sammut
9 days ago

Should we look at the Egrant enquiry in a different light

Joseph Markham
Joseph Markham
4 days ago

Legal contortions, worthy of an Olympic Gold medal, to excuse the inexcusable.

Related Stories

Opinion: Trapped in a state of lawlessness
On 19 September, the European Court of Justice declared
Opinion: Unfit for purpose
Robert Abela picked the worst possible choice.  He could

Our Awards and Media Partners

Award logo Award logo Award logo