The Malta Independent 28 April 2024, Sunday
View E-Paper

Irate court gives prosecution one last sitting to produce witnesses in Fenech money laundering case

Thursday, 28 October 2021, 15:33 Last update: about 4 years ago

There was frustration in court this morning after prosecutors failed to bring all remaining witnesses in the money laundering case against Yorgen Fenech, despite the court having ordered them to do so.

The millionaire businessman, who in separate proceedings is indicted over the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, is accused of money laundering and misappropriation of funds belonging to a company he owns with his uncle Ray. The amount of money alleged to have been misappropriated is around €40,000.

Among witnesses today was a representative from the Commissioner for Revenue, who said he had been assigned to perform a tax audit on Nicholas Cachia and Technobet. The tax audit has been concluded and an objection to it is being dealt with at the moment, he said.

The witness said that he saw that as the company was fully owned by Cachia, transactions were being made into his bank accounts. A balance of over €3million were left unexplained by his declarations both as an individual and as a company, the tax audit concluded, he said.

Cachia had been spoken to, and had said that around €900k had been income from the company and the rest was coming from horse trades made by Cachia personally.

Documents showed he had around €2 million in general expenses and €900,000 in expenses on medicinals for the horses.

But despite her order to summon all remaining prosecution witnesses before Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech this morning, at the end of the sitting, the prosecution objected to bail on the grounds that it had still more witnesses to testify.

The magistrate said she had been clear that today was for the rest of the evidence and to decide on bail. “Bail is sacrosanct” Frendo Dimech said.

One of the witnesses due to testify today had called in sick at the last minute said the prosecution.

On bail objections, lawyer Marthese Grech argued that Fenech’s release would cause public disorder. The magistrate however said that she was prohibited from taking into account things outside the courtroom and pointed to the fact that the case dealt with the alleged laundering of just €5,000 to €40,000. “I don’t think that it is a public disorder issue, money laundering, there are so many cases at the moment…I’m here to understand. Bring me some evidence of this public disorder risk,” demanded the magistrate.

“Here we have a person who is under arrest for other offences. Since 30 August we have had sittings and enough time to hear civilian witnesses. There are also other accused in related cases whose bail has not been objected to.”

Lawyer Cinzia Azzopardi Alamango from the Office of the Attorney General said that the AG’s objections to bail were twofold: the risk of flight and the fact that the accused had ties abroad.

The court was not satisfied with this explanation, however. “How can you justify this? You have to compare like with like. Do you have evidence of a risk of flight on these charges?” Magistrate Frendo Dimech asked.

The lawyer protested that there were civilian witnesses who were yet to testify.

“I held today’s sitting to hear all your witnesses,” replied the court. “Who are the witnesses who are left?” The prosecution did not reply. “You asked me for another sitting to hear civilian witnesses and instead inexplicably you bring a policeman and a single witness!”

Azzopardi Alamango said that there were employees who had yet to be summoned, but the court had had enough, describing the prosecution’s actions as unethical.

“Lawyers, we have a particular case here and involves one of the smallest amounts we have ever encountered [in money laundering proceedings]. In other cases, with larger amounts, bail has been given.”

Frendo Dimech insisted that there must be one of the specific risks outlined in the Criminal Code in order to deny bail. “Don’t put it on the court…the case is yours!” she said.

Another sitting was scheduled for the 2nd November. In view of the fact that there were witnesses yet to testify, the defence asked the court not to decree on its application for bail before the next sitting.

The court said that it would decide the bail request in that sitting during which all the remaining witnesses would be heard.

  • don't miss