Lawyers for former Vitals and Steward CEO Armin Ernst continued arguing in court today that there was not enough prima facie evidence to merit an indictment.
The sitting formed part of ongoing proceedings in the Steward-Vitals corruption case. Last October, the court ruled there was enough prima facie evidence for Ernst to stand trial on charges of fraud, bribery, money laundering, and misappropriation linked to the controversial public hospitals concession.
The defence is arguing that the evidence put forward by the prosecution was not enough to meet the legal threshold required at the prima facie stage.
Rebutting the defence's submissions, the prosecution maintained that the threshold at this stage is not a finding of guilt but the existence of sufficient evidence to justify a trial.
However, the defence stressed that a prima facie basis "is not any finding of guilt" and insisted that the onus of proof lies squarely on the prosecution to demonstrate a clear nexus between the accused and the alleged wrongdoing of the companies.
Defence lawyers argued that the prima facie test cannot be satisfied merely by referring to conclusions drawn up in a magisterial inquiry. They contended that it is not enough for the court to rely on an "understanding" of an inquiry carried out by a magistrate without independently delving into the evidence.
"There should not be the idea that as long as some evidence is presented, then there is the basis to establish prima facie," the defence submitted. "With due respect, the evidence that has been presented today is not enough to establish a prima facie case."
A key point raised by the defence concerned the conclusions of the inquiring magistrate.
From what was exhibited in the proceedings, the defence argued that the magistrate's conclusions appeared to be based on reports presented by experts during the inquiry, without any independent assessment.
"These are not civil proceedings where you might have an expert assessing damages on a building or a car," the court was told. "Criminal action is being taken."
Position of individual director
Addressing the court, lawyer Jose Herrera said the proceedings were directed against a legal entity and "not really against our client".
He argued that his client had been placed in "the most awkward position possible", being the last director standing, without access to company files and without a mandate to represent the company.
According to Herrera, his client had sent two emails to the Malta Business Registry notifying his resignation, yet continues to face criminal proceedings in relation to a company over which he has no control.
"We have already dealt with this, it is what it is," the court said.
The prosecution insisted the basis for a prima facie decree lies "somewhere between the possible and the probable", whereby the main piece of evidence was the magisterial inquiry itself. According to the prosecution, the documents in this regard are clear, and Armin Ernst is identified as a representative of the companies.
The case will continue on 4 March at 9:30am.
Magistrate Lara Lanfranco presided over the hearing. The prosecution was led by AG lawyers Shelby Aquilina and Francesco Refalo. Defence lawyers Jose Herrera, Matthew Xuereb appeared for Ernst in his personal capacity, while David Camilleri represented the accused company.