A man previously employed as a Port Workers’ foreman who was implicated in a fraud scheme had his acquittal confirmed on appeal.

Victor Spiteri, 80, was implicated in a scam aimed at defrauding transshipment companies operating within the Malta Freeport.

Spiteri was previously employed to direct the unloading of merchandise alongside containers in the Freeport yard. He faced criminal action for fraud, falsifying documents, falsifying a declaration and making use of the false documents.

Spiteri was implicated in the scheme by Ronald Galea, a former general manager at CMA-CGM, who was also suspected of defrauding the company.

The authorities who were following up on the claims heard how Spiteri was tasked with issuing fake invoices for works and Galea was then to endorse the accompanying payment. The money was then said to have been shared between the two.

Charges were filed against them and Galea even submitted an admission of guilt. In 2013, presiding former magistrate Carol Peralta acquitted Spiteri of any wrongdoing. The Attorney General appealed this decision however.

The AG argued that procedural law had been misinterpreted and that discarding the testimony of Galea by the first court on the grounds that he was not credible was not correct as he had not testified orally before the magistrate. It was argued that this was an incorrect assessment of the evidence.

It transpired that Galea had testified before former magistrate Jacqueline Padovani Grima, presiding over the case before she was made a judge. Magistrate Carol Peralta who then took over had relied on the transcript of the testimony delivered by Galea to Padovani Grima.

The AG therefore argued that relying solely on transcripts of evidence and failing to hear witnesses personally before delivering judgment led to an incorrect interpretation of facts.

Mr Justice David Scicluna, presiding over the appeal, observed that the prosecution never asked for the witnesses to be re-heard after the case was reassigned to another judge.

It was also observed that the prosecution made no reference to this exception when submitting its final pleas.

When taking into consideration the facts of the case, Scicluna took note of a cheque worth Lm11,400 which was said to have been issued for services never rendered, ended up being deposited into Galea’s account and used as a part payment for the purchase of an entertainment boat for the enjoyment of Galea himself.

The court therefore noted that despite the allegation that Spiteri is said to have shared in the pair’s fraudulent earnings, it was Galea who pocketed the entire sum from the cheque.

On the basis that no serious reasons were found to discredit the first court, Spiteri’s acquittal was reconfirmed and the AG’s appeal was rejected.

Lawyer Veronique Dalli represented the accused.