Former Pilatus MLRO fails in bid to be included in Repubblika's nolle prosequis case

A judge has turned down a request by Pilatus Bank’s former Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO), to be made a party to Repubblika’s case over the Attorney General's failure to charge several high-ranking Pilatus Bank officials.

This emerges from a decree handed down today by madam justice Doreen Clarke, who is presiding over the ongoing case in which rule of law NGO Repubblika is requesting administrative review of the AG’s decision not to charge several individuals recommended for prosecution by the Pilatus Bank inquiry.

The court had heard arguments by the State Advocate and Sant Fournier’s lawyer in a sitting held on Tuesday.

In today’s ruling, the judge noted that jurisprudence had long established that in order to be admitted as an intervenor in an ongoing case, the applicant had to demonstrate a substantial and direct personal interest in the case, one that requires protection, and not one arising solely from its outcome.

The judge ruled that, contrary to what was stated in the application, this case is not one of general scrutiny of the Attorney General’s administrative actions in the investigations into Pilatus Bank and its officials or every decision made after the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry, but to scrutinise the specific decision to not prosecute the individuals mentioned by the plaintiff. 

This ‘limited’ scope , the judge said, meant that Sant Fournier’s in the case was not substantial and direct. At most her juridical interest could be construed as being in the outcome of the case, once she is claiming to have been discriminated against because the outcome of the case against her could have ramifications for Antoniella Gauci’s potential status as a witness in the criminal proceedings against Sant Fournier. 

“However, and in terms of the jurisprudence cited…an interest in the outcome of this case because the outcome could possibly have implications, positive or negative in a case or future case does not amount to the juridical interest required [under the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure],” she said.