A court has dismissed a claim made by former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri and three others which stated that they had their rights breached through the freezing of their assets in 2021.

The claim – made by Schembri, his father Alfio, Malcolm Scerri, and Robert Zammit – centred on a freezing order issued against them after they were charged with money laundering, criminal conspiracy, fraud, and forgery in connection with the Allied Newspapers printing press.

They, together with a host of others which includes Nexia BT’s Karl Cini and Brian Tonna, former Allied Newspapers managing directors Adrian Hillman and Vincent Buhagiar, all pleaded not guilty to the charges.

When they were arraigned, a blanket freezing order was imposed on their assets in line with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act – something which allowed them access to only €14,000 per year in order to get by.

In a constitutional application filed against the State Advocate in the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, the plaintiffs argued that they were unable to ask the court to revoke the freezing order as this is not allowed by law before the case ends, stating that this is a breach of their right to the enjoyment of their property because they are being considered as guilty before the case is concluded.

In his judgment, Judge Giovanni Grixti noted that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act allowed the men to request court authorisation to pay debts from contracts made in good faith before the freezing order was imposed, and likewise could also ask the court to authorise the transfer of property.

Therefore, the person who is subject to the freezing order does have a remedy in order to mitigate its effects, and judge Grixti in fact noted that Keith Schembri had told the court that he had not made use of such remedies while Robert Zammit had said that he had received what he had asked for.

The court said that a person cannot be returned to the financial position they were in before the freezing order was issued because of the risk that assets which may have been obtained with proceeds of crime could be concealed or transferred.

While Judge Grixti acknowledged the discomfort that a freezing order may case, he said that there was no evidence that the plaintiff’s fundamental rights had been breached

Judge Grixti ruled that while the provisions did not offer an ordinary remedy, there was no breach of rights in view of other extraordinary remedies which were available by law.

Judge Giovanni Grixti presided.  Lawyers Edward Gatt and Mark Vassallo assisted the plaintiffs while lawyers Julian Farrugia and Yana Bonello appeared on behalf of the State Advocate.