BOV tells judge it has been placed in ‘impossible situation’ in money laundering case

Bank of Valletta has told a judge that it had been placed in an “impossible situation” as a result of conflicting instructions given by different courts which meant it had to choose between being prosecuted and being found in contempt of court.

This emerged in an appeal filed by BOV to a decision by the Financial Services Tribunal, which had ordered the bank to release frozen funds belonging to Simona DeGiovanni and Vincenzo Cocozza, in view of their acquittal from money laundering charges in Italy.

More recently, the bank had received an order from the Criminal Court to freeze their assets.

Lawyer Stefano Filletti told Mr. Justice Lawrence Mintoff that there had been developments in the case since the last sitting, in September.

He pointed out that news media had reported that Cocozza and DeGiovanni had filed a Constitutional case claiming that an attachment order had been issued which breached their fundamental human rights.

"This made us aware of that court case," Filletti said, exhibiting a copy of the relevant court application in that case.

"In the very first paragraph of the constitutional case filed by Cocozza and DeGiovanni, they are claiming to be aware of an attachment order issued against them at the request of the Italian authorities, on suspicion of money laundering and other offences."

Filletti told the court that he wanted to have the bank testify now. It was not possible to bring ti to testify at an earlier stage, he explained, because the attachment order, once served upon the bank, obliged the bank to freeze all the assets of the subject person. "But the law also states that the bank and its officials cannot disclose any information that may reveal the fact that there is an attachment order because it would constitute tipping the subjects off, a crime which is punishable by imprisonment."

This had denied the bank the possibility of explaining to its clients why it was withholding their funds.

It had also asked for the Criminal Court's permission to testify in these proceedings, but this was denied.

But the legal impediment imposed on the bank, stopping it from testifying so as not to alert the suspects, was now stultified by the fact that the suspects themselves had filed a related case in September and declared their knowledge of the investigation.

“The bank has been placed in an impossible situation,” said the lawyer, because it had been served with an order from the Criminal Court to freeze the suspect’s assets and forbidden from telling him why. In the meantime, Cocozza had filed proceedings against the bank in front of the Financial Services Tribunal, demanding the release of his funds.

The bank, unable to both release the money or explain why it couldn’t, unsurprisingly lost the case and was ordered to release the funds.

“So now the bank is ordered not to release the funds on pain of criminal proceedings and an opposing judgement ordering it to release them, on pain of being found in contempt of court.”

The State Advocate had also objected to the bank’s request to disclose the fact in its defence.

“The bank is not a party to the investigation, it is extraneous to the issue,” Filletti told the judge today. “It was given an order by the State, which it obeyed and ended up in this mess.  “It becomes more acute now when the bank tries to justify the reason to withhold the funds and the appealed party declared that they know the reason, but are still insisting that it release the funds and in so doing, commit a crime.”

Opposing counsel, lawyer Joseph Grech, objected to the exhibition of the appeal and to the bank testifying.

Mr. Justice Mintoff ordered the bank to file a formal application, outlining the submissions it had made today, on which the court will provide a ruling at a later date.

Lawyers Stefano Filletti represented BOV in the proceedings. Francesca Galea Cavallazzi appeared for the appellant. Lawyer Joseph Grech appeared for Cocozza.