Former Gaming Authority CEO’s conviction over casino raid tip-off confirmed on appeal
Court of Criminal Appeal confirms the conviction and punishment handed to Heathcliff Farrugia in May for informing Yorgen Fenech about an anti-money laundering review that was going to be conducted at a rival casino in 2019
The Court of Criminal Appeal has confirmed the conviction and punishment handed to Heathcliff Farrugia in May for informing Yorgen Fenech about an anti-money laundering review that was going to be conducted at a rival casino in 2019.
At the time Fenech was the owner of the Portomaso Casino.
Magistrate Ian Farrugia had found Farrugia guilty of unlawfully disclosing information he had obtained by virtue of his office and revealing professional secrets in May, for which he had been handed a three-year conditional discharge.
Farrugia had resigned in October 2020 following his arraignment over his communications with Fenech, who is awaiting trial for the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, and who was also owner of Portomaso Casino.
The chats had been found during the analysis of Fenech’s phone, after it was seized by police investigators in December 2019 during his arrest in connection with Caruana Galizia’s murder.
Investigators had examined 24 pages of texts that were exchanged on 23 September, 2019, between 9pm and 10pm, and showed that Fenech had communicated his disappointment with the result of a recent anti-money laundering compliance review at Tumas Gaming to Farrugia.
Tumas Gaming was the operator of the Oracle Casino and the Portomaso Casino.
Fenech had complained to Farrugia that the review had given his organisation a bad reputation.
Farrugia had tried to soften the blow to Fenech in his reply, telling him that he would delay the release of the compliance report, and revealing that another inspection was also going to take place at Casino Malta, owned by Tumas’ business rival, Eden Leisure Group.
In a judgement handed down by Mr. Justice Neville Camilleri in the Court of Criminal Appeal on Tuesday, the judge rejected the appeal and confirmed the sentence, ruling that the court of first instance had been justified in reaching its conclusions.