Father and daughter cleared of dishonest property donation

A father and daughter have been cleared of cheating the daughter's former lover of his part-ownership of a property.

Mary Daisy Mizzi and her father Grazio Mizzi were charged with a number of offences after the woman's ex-lover, Victor Pisani, claimed that the two had transferred a half of the ownership of a property bought from the woman's estranged husband by her father, with the understanding that he was acting as Pisani's representative.

Mizzi and Pisani's relationship soured over the years and they eventually split up, but before that happened, Grazio Mizzi had donated his half share of the property – which was used as the matrimonial home- to his daughter.

Pisani had filed a report with the police as this transfer had taken place whilst court cases relating to the property were underway and because the transfer was made after Grazio Mizzi had filed an appeal in a court case against Pisani which Mizzi had lost.

Mary Daisy and Grazio Mizzi were subsequently charged with a slew of criminal offences relating to fraud and obtaining money through false pretences.

In her judgment on the matter, Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit examined the elements of the offence of fraud and related jurisprudence in detail.

The court noted that the point at issue was the intention behind the transfer of the property, which had taken place at a “somewhat delicate” time for the accused and Pisani in view of their break-up.

However, it said, in order to prove the charge of obtaining money through false pretences, the prosecution needed to prove more than that the woman had simply lied. The law requires proof of a “deceit, device or pretence calculated to lead to the belief in the existence of any fictitious enterprise or of any imaginary power, influence or credit” in order for a successful conviction for this offence. A mise en scene was therefore required, said the court.

But, noted the court, “in these proceedings, nothing of the sort had happened and one cannot say that a lie had been said, because this property was already in the name of Grazio Mizzi when the transfer was made. The only thing that emerged from Pisani's testimony is that he and Mizzi had agreed that the property was to pass to Pisani and he would always find reason to delay.”

The court observed that notarial searches in the public registry showed that the accused were co-owners of the property in question and that Pisani was not mentioned at any stage.

Daisy Mizzi had testified in 2011, telling the court that Pisani had deceived her when he had suggested that she include his name on receipts for the monthly repayments she was making to her father for a debt.

The house had been built by her father, a builder, for her family, as she had been married at the time. Her father had donated the house to her in order to overcome possible claims over the property by her siblings.

The court also noted that Pisani had also been in talks over being paid for the sum he was claiming, and therefore had never been denied his share of the price. Whilst it might have made sense for the man to have an undivided portion of ownership whilst the two were in a relationship, this ceased to be logical after the pair went their separate ways, held the court, ruling that “the offence of fraud has in no way been proven against any of the accused.”

Mizzi was also cleared of making a false declaration to a public authority, the court noting that the element of gain or benefit from the false declaration was not proven and that the declarations she had made on the contract were all true.

Inspector Yvonne Farrugia prosecuted.

Lawyers Mario Mifsud and Alfred Abela appeared for the defendants.