Zaren Vassallo perjury case: parties complain of relaxed police investigation

Construction magnate Nazzareno Vassallo left court in apparent good spirits despite heated exchanges between prosecution and defence during today’s hearing before magistrate Carol Peralta.

Vassallo stands charged of perjury and use of falsified documents in a 2010 civil case.

The civil suit revolves around a contract awarded by Vassallo’s company, Vassallo Builders Limited, to Avantgarde Limited, which belongs to Joseph Vella.

Vassallo was charged with perjury and presenting false documents during a civil case where he is being sued for more than €200,000, over a deal in which 60 bathrooms were installed at Vassallo’s Prince of Wales home for the elderly, in Sliema.

Since construction work took longer than planned, the installation of the bathrooms was delayed and Vassallo terminated the contract.

According to Avantgarde Limited owner Joseph Vella, minute 1175 – which recording a meeting that took place on October 3, 2005 – states the date that works were due to start, but when this minute was filed by Zaren Vassallo during civil proceedings, this date was missing.

Vassallo claimed that he was never in possession of these minutes of the meeting.


This afternoon’s proceedings revolved around evidence stored in a computer system belonging to Avantgarde, the plaintiff in separate civil proceedings, which would have proved whether or not Vassallo had exhibited a doctored email to the court.

Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi, representing Vella in the civil case, had previously alleged anomalies in the evidence tendered during the civil suit. Today he reiterated his claim that Vassallo had exhibited an email minus a crucial sentence that mentioned the starting date for the works.

Lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell, representing Vassallo, said he was “shocked that this issue wasn’t investigated at the initial stages” during the police investigation, and argued that the court cannot continue collecting evidence at this stage. “If the lawyer representing the other party in parte civile is not correct and his allegations are proved unfounded, the case should stop and be reversed”.

Defence lawyer Joe Giglio, appearing on behalf of Vassallo, told the court that the prosecution was acting on an incorrect premise – that Vassallo himself had sent the email.

Giglio argued that the secretary had sent it and that there were multiple recipients, adding that “the central issue is not whether or not a secretary sent an email, but that the parte civile is misleading the court as he knows that the email was not sent by Vassallo but his secretary. He therefore shouldn’t be requesting the seizure of Vassallo’s computer.”

Giglio added that there were multiple recipients to that email.

Giglio railed against the current court system whereby “in this country, people are dragged to court on the basis of a statement by one person... This is a big mistake and I hope to see it change in my lifetime,” he said.