Gaddafi’s Malta millions: Libyan state files reply to widow’s appeal

A lawyer representing the Libyan state in an appeal filed by the widow of slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to claim some €96 million deposited in Bank of Valletta accounts by son Muatassim, has insisted that it is the Maltese courts who should decide the claim.

The three accounts at Bank of Valletta were held in the name of Capital Resources, a company owned by Muatassim Gaddafi, under the name Muatasimbllah Muammar Abuminyar.

Muatassim, 36, died of gunshot wounds to his throat and abdomen in the Libyan civil war in October 2011 after his convoy was ambushed by anti-Gaddafi forces, while trying to flee Sirte.

In a decision handed down in June, a judge ordered the return of over €96 million held by Bank of Valletta on behalf of the heirs of the late son of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, to the Libyan state, concluding a six-year court case.

But in an appeal filed the following month, Safiya Ferkash Mohammed and her lawyers argued that the Maltese courts lacked jurisdiction and could not decide the case over the funds.

In a recently-filed reply to that appeal application, lawyer Shazoo Ghaznavi, appointed as special representative of the Libyan State, tackled the grounds for the widow’s appeal. 

It was clear, Ghaznavi argued, that the court of first instance had acknowledged that certain assets were present in Malta, under the control of the Maltese State, being held on account of its international obligations. Even had the assets not been physically in Malta, the fact that they were being held by a Malta-registered bank still gave the Maltese courts jurisdiction, submitted the lawyer.

The appellant, Ferkash Mohammed, had been selective in her quoting of Libya’s so-called Purge Law, the lawyer argued, pointing out that this law allows separate criminal and civil proceedings when dealing with wealth that is illicitly gained.

Ghaznavi highlighted the fact that the Purge Law quoted by Gaddafi’s widow provides that “death shall not prevent the restitution of the money obtained from illicit gain, even after the said money have been relinquished to the heirs if the restitution is established by a decision issued by the People’s Court.”

Other arguments raised by the Libyan State in its reply were that the evidence clearly demonstrated that Muatassim Gaddafi had been subject to Libya’s Law 40 of 1974 on Service in the Armed Forces, which specifically prohibits members of the military from engaging in or carrying out any commercial or business activities while serving, even through intermediaries.

Gaddafi’s Malta fortune used to be managed by former Labour Party treasurer Joe Sammut, an accountant who had been the subject of criminal proceedings in Malta in which he had been accused of creating companies with false stock to secure residence permits for Libyan businessmen in Malta.

The cash was used to fund Muatassim Gaddafi’s playboy lifestyle, with millions held in his various American Express and Visa credit card accounts.

The Libyan Attorney General had accused Bank of Valletta of violating know-your-customer rules that should have prevented it from opening an account for Gaddafi in the first place.

Safia Farkash’s lawyer, Charilos ‘Harris’ Oikonomopoulos, claimed that Muatassim Gaddafi had another heir: his hitherto unknown wife and Dutch model Lisa van Goinga and her son.

Oikonomopoulos insisted that Gaddafi’s Malta cash were his private funds and not government monies. “You’ve been trying to prove that the provenance of his funds was illicit… there has not been a single clue of a single time of any amount coming from any official or related Libyan business,” the Greek lawyer told the Libyan AG’s lawyer in Malta. “These funds were private funds, having nothing to do with the Libyan state.”

Oikonomopoulos was assisted by lawyer Louis Cassar Pullicino. Lawyer Simon Micallef Stafrace was nominated by the courts to act as deputy curator on behalf of the unknown heirs of Muastassim Gaddafi.