Police Commissioner describes Repubblika's challenge to inaction after Pilatus inquiry findings as 'fishing expedition'

Police Commissioner Angelo Gafà called the proceedings filed by Repubblika, over inaction against top Pilatus Bank officials, a “fishing expedition” which did not apply to the circumstances of the case.

As part of the inquiry conclusions, Magistrate Ian Farrugia had ordered police to press charges against the owner and director of the defunct bank, Ali Sadr Hasheminejad; its director, Hamid Reza Ghanbari; CEO Mehmet Taşlı, as well as accounting officer, acting MLRO and risk manager Antoniella Gauci.

The inquiry, which concluded last December, had found documentary evidence showing trading in influence between Hasheminejad and Keith Schembri – former chief of staff and right-hand man to disgraced prime minister Joseph Muscat.

The magistrate had ordered the police and the Attorney General to charge the bank’s top executives with money laundering, making false declarations to a public authority, and participating in a criminal association with the intention to commit an offence which was punishable with more than four years imprisonment.

Magistrate Farrugia’s inquiry had also recommended the reopening of the Egrant inquiry into an offshore company whose intended owner remains a mystery.

In a reply filed in court earlier today by Superintendent Frank Tabone and Inspector Pauline Bonello on Gafà’s behalf, it was argued that challenge proceedings were extraordinary procedures and that the rule is that criminal proceedings were carried out by the State ex-officio, except where the complaint of the injured party was required or where the law states otherwise.

Challenge proceedings were therefore to be used “only in those cases required by law and in terms of what the law requires.”

The Criminal Code clearly states that the court could only intervene in cases where the Police refused to act “after a report or criminal complaint about a crime,” and only after several procedural requirements were satisfied, submitted the police.

“Certainly challenge proceedings are not intended to open an investigation beyond that begun by a report to the police or a criminal complaint. The procedure in question should not serve as a fishing expedition which would lead to the court deciding itself with regards to what offence the police are to proceed.”

The Commissioner’s reply states that Reppubblika’s sworn application referred to two letters it had sent to the Commissioner, as a “notitia criminis” - a notice informing the police that a crime has occurred, but what was, in fact, being requested, was that he initiates criminal proceedings on the basis of the conclusions of the magisterial inquiry.

Challenge proceedings did not apply in this context and the law was clear on this, the police argued.

“As always established by the courts, challenge proceedings are not intended to allow an extraneous person to obtain information from a magisterial inquiry and at the same time prejudice the police’s work,” remarked the Commissioner’s representatives.

Besides this, challenge proceedings can only be filed by the same person who filed the report or criminal complaint, he argued.

The reply goes on to say that were Malta to request the extradition of persons who reside abroad, this process still depended on the foreign jurisdiction and court proceedings about this person’s return.

Additionally, should the police discover new information, this must be investigated before the person in question is charged, both to strengthen the case against them as well as to avoid prosecuting that person twice for the same offence. The persons being referred to were, however, not identified in the reply.