Three former clients of the late notary Ivan Barbara have asked the courts to launch a magisterial inquiry to look into possible misappropriation and fraud by Barbara and his widow.

The request was made in a court application filed by Matthew Sacco, Simon Mallia and Valeria Mallia, who had handed Barbara cheques amounting to a combined €30,650 in relation to promise-of-sale agreements they had signed.

Barbara died of Covid-19 in India earlier this year and several of his former clients are struggling to recoup money they had paid as deposits when they signed their promises-of-sale before the notary.

Matthew Sacco had given Barbara a cheque for €4,900 pertaining to the purchase of a garage in Marsasala.

Simon Mallia paid €5,000 as deposit for a Zabbar garage, while his daughter Valeria had signed a promise-of-sale agreement for a Marsascala apartment and deposited €20,700 with the notary.

In a court application filed by lawyer David Bonello, the three said they had paid the money to Barbara so that he would eventually pass them on to the sellers when the contracts were finalised.

They said that, in order not to lose their property after Barbara’s death, they have since signed new promise-of-sale agreements and contracts, and had paid the deposit for a second time.

After some time from Barbara’s demise, they asked to be refunded their original deposits.

At first, they were told by Barbara’s widow, Rosanne, that there were complications since the death certificate had not been issued yet. At a later stage, after the certificate was issued, they were told that the refund process was ongoing. But they were later informed that Rosanne Barbara had renounced her late husband’s inheritance.

They noted that, while the government’s chief notary had been tasked with taking over the acts signed by the late notary, this would in no way help them recoup their money.

The applicants said they had written to Bank of Valletta, with whom Barbara had a clients account, asking for information and a refund, but the bank referred them back to Barbara’s heirs, saying it could not provide them with such information.

The applicants say they believe that a criminal act was committed by both Barbara and his widow, arguing that there are enough reasons for a magisterial inquiry to be launched.

They said the fact that the wife renounced the inheritance because there were not enough funds to refund the clients is indicative of misappropriation of funds and fraud. The notary should have held on to the money for when the final deeds were signed, but it is clear that they were used for other purposes, they said.

The widow had not denied claims in the media that the couple had used the funds while they were abroad in India. The couple had reportedly travelled to India to adopt a child. 

She had also failed to react to claims that the couple held offshore accounts.

Rosanne Barbara had also not denied claims by another client that Barbara had deposited cheques into his personal account, rather held them in escrow in a client account.

They said that, as an accountant who did her late husband’s accounting work, Barbara would have been aware of what was happening. They further argued that her renunciation of the inheritance does not free her from criminal responsibility.