Questions have once again been raised about how a number of ongoing high-profile money laundering cases are being prosecuted, with a lawyer telling a court that after years of hearing evidence in one of them, the amount of money allegedly laundered had still not been stated, much less an explanation of the transactions that led to it. 

The case against Florinda Sultana and Albert Buttigieg, who had fronted the operation of restaurants Porticello and Capo Mulini, continued before Magistrate Leonard Caruana on Friday.

The pair had been arrested in 2021 and are accused of fronting companies that manage two seafood restaurants, so as to allegedly launder money linked to oil smuggling. Sultana and Buttigieg are pleading not guilty to charges relating to money laundering and other financial crimes. 

When the case continued on Friday, defence lawyer Stefano Filletti, who is assisting Sultana and Buttigieg together with lawyers Nicole Galea, Christina Sutton and Martina Cuschieri, informed the court that he had filed a request to change the freezing order imposed on his clients in terms of the new legal framework that was introduced last month by Act 6 of 2024.

Filletti informed the magistrate, who was only recently allocated to the case after a caseload "reshuffle," that he had filed several applications requesting variations of the freezing order. 

The lawyer explained that there was a recurring problem in money laundering cases, about which he had already confronted Police Inspector James Turner, who had originally charged the pair: the prosecution had not yet identified the transactions which they believe were intended to launder criminal cash.

"I understand that the prosecution has to exhibit evidence of suspicious transactions which raise suspicion of money laundering. But you must see the movement of money...

I had asked the investigator who had decided to charge these people, to tell me where the money laundering took place when the movement of money in question was the defendants acquiring shares in a company through bank transfers."

Filletti said that the inspector had confirmed that the money alleged to have been laundered was suspected of being derived from illicit oil trade involving Darren Debono.

"My second question was at what point in time did he see the introduction of these illicit funds?" The lawyer had argued that the operation of the restaurants had been profitable and so any laundering must have taken place at the moment the restaurants had been acquired.

"I suggested to him that the problem in his argument was that the companies had been purchased through a direct bank transfer, so where was the introduction of illicit funds? He had said that there was nothing illicit in that. Neither was their money coming from abroad."

"So, I asked him 'where is the money laundering?' And he started clutching his chest and coughing. Between coughs he said there was a mixing of funds...and not to forget there were amounts of money that were undeclared."

The inspector had argued that, independently from the funds allegedly being received from Darren Debono, there was also the mixing of declared and undeclared cash through the restaurant. 

Filletti said that he had pointed out that in the case of Pieta Marina, the restaurant had been in business for less than a year at that point and had not even filed a tax return.

The lawyer told the court on Friday morning that several years into the proceedings, the prosecution had not yet managed to identify any suspicious transactions which could be money laundering. "Instead, what they did was produce 12 terabytes of data without explaining why or its relevance," Filletti said.

"If the court will order the limiting of the freezing order in value, the defence expects the prosecution must also specify how that amount had been arrived at, and specify which transactions." This was necessary, said the defence lawyer, to avoid a situation where the Attorney General could simply stipulate a cosmetic value to bypass the requested amendments to the freezing order.

"To shut me up the prosecution presented me with 12 terabytes of data, which I had asked for the expungement of, on the grounds of irrelevance, but the court said it had no power to do so."

Magistrate Caruana thanked the lawyer for the interesting argument but said that his court was not the right forum to raise it. "I have to rely on the amount that the prosecution states."

"But it must be stated in good faith," Filletti replied. "I must see the justification, if I am to argue the claim is fallacious, I must know what led to that claim. Otherwise, it is simply and arbitrary amount... moreover, if they don't give me a basis for their calculations, I will not even have a basis on which to appeal."

Hitting out at the Act of Parliament introduced last month which amends various laws dealing with the proceeds of crime, the lawyer said that this particular problem was not going to be solved by "granting a general power to the prosecution to lead the court down the garden path."

The court said that all the points raised by the defence would be addressed at the next sitting, which is intended for evidence and submissions on whether or not to limit the freezing order.