Notary Pierre Falzon was cleared of deceiving a client when instead of a will, he had drawn up a contract of sale by transferring property in Marsa to her brother for the price of €23,300.

The case goes back to 2009, when Concetta Agius filed a police report claiming that on 12 December, 2006, the notary had drawn a contract of sale, effectively transferring property in Triq l-Ajkla, Marsa to her brother Vanni Agius. 

After investigating the case, Inspector Ian Abdilla instituted proceedings against the notary.

While not challenging the fact that she wanted to transfer the property over to her brother, she argued that she wanted to do this after her death. “I told the notary to draw a will not a contract of sale”, Concetta Agius told the court.

The contract was drawn at Concetta Agius’ residence but she did not sign any documents on the day. Subsequently, her brother Vanni and his partner Doreen Abdilla took her to the notary’s office. She then informed the notary that she wanted to pass the property over to her brother after her death. Vanni Agius was then to sell the property and share the profits between all siblings.

While Cettina Agius was convalescing in hospital, in November 2007, her brother Nenu Agius visited her and he stayed at her residence together with her other brother Vanni.

However, following an argument between the two brothers, Nenu was thrown out of the house and his brother changed the locks. When the sister was discharged from hospital she only gained access to her home with the help of police officers. Once inside, she found that her electricity supply had been suspended, her debit cards had been used and cash had gone missing.

In 2008, Vanni Agius sent a letter to his brother and sister saying they had no claim on the residence as it was his. Checks showed that a contract drawn on 12 December, 2006 by notary Pierre Fazon had transferred the property over to the brother.

Taking the witness stand the accused explained that neither Cettina Agius nor her brother Vanni were regular clients of his.

“They called at my office in December 2012. I understood that the sister wanted to transfer the house to her brother but reserved the right to keep living there until she dies. I needed further documentation and to save Concetta Agus the trouble of calling at my Valletta office she signed a power of attorney to my clerk. The following day Vanni Agius called at my office and signed the contract”, the notary said.

Magistrate Doreen Clarke noted that three charges appeared on the police citation. These were forging of a public document, breach of official duties, and committing an offence he was duty bound to prevent. A note filed by the Attorney General included the charge of misappropriation, however the magistrate ruled that since this was not included in the original charge sheet, the court would not take any notice of it.

Magistrate Clarke ruled that the prosecution’s claim that Notary Falzon drew a false declaration because Cettina Agius wanted to draw a will and not a contract of sale, was not proven. The court acquitted the notary of all charges.

On 5 February last year, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon rejected a civil claim filed by Concetta Agius against her brother Vanni. In his judgement, Mr Justice Zammit McKeon noted that on 3 September, 1987, Concetta Agius had drawn a will appointing her brother Vanni as her only heir and owner of her belongings, which would pass to him after her death, as long as he remains a bachelor.

“Since 20 years prior to December 2006, the claimant had already drawn a will in favour of her brother, there is no reason why she needed to draw another will. The court finds that the events as recounted by the claimant are not credible. Furthermore, based on the evidence of notary Pierre Falzon, if the claimant had requested a will, there would have been no need for a power of attorney, as the will would have been drawn on the day. It was only a contract of sale that called for the documents to be signed the following day since the notary had to check further documentation”, the judge said.

The Civil Court threw out the request of Cettina Agius, holding that the only credible testimony in the case was that given by notary Falzon. The court also ordered that the claimant pays all court related expenses. In both cases, lawyers Michael and Lucio Sciriha appeared for notary Pierre Falzon.