Inquiry expert tells court she could not find Malta Enterprise due diligence report for Vitals concession

Court-appointed forensic accountant Miroslava Milenović defended her qualifications and investigative methods during intense cross-examination in the Vitals corruption inquiry, describing her role as essential in uncovering complex financial links.

On 13 November 2024, proceedings continued with the testimony of Miroslava Milenović, a court-appointed Forensic Accountant Expert.

Upon being questioned about how she was appointed as an expert in the enquiry, Milenović replied that she did not apply for this work, recalling that her appointment happened sometime in 2018.

Further to this, she went into detail on which investigation methods she used, stating that she used “by-book investigations”, such as analysis on the accounts, relationship, bank statements, and other relevant documents.

“I was looking at the big picture”, Milenović stated. 

In a previous sitting, former prime minister Joseph Muscat’s defence lawyers, along with other defendants in the Vitals corruption case, raised concerns over the impartiality of financial crime expert Samuel Sittlington, appointed to assist in the Vitals inquiry. 

Sittlington, who has a background in economic crime, faced intense questioning over his qualifications and alleged conflicts of interest. Defence lawyers highlighted issues such as his involvement in organising inquiry documents, alleged past dealings with law enforcement, and details on his LinkedIn profile, as potential challenges to his credibility. However, the court dismissed motions questioning his integrity, noting that formal recusal procedures must be addressed in the appropriate jurisdiction.

When probed on the relevance of the statements made in her report on offshore companies being opened in Panama and New Zealand, Milenović said on Wednesday that she was under the impression that such decisions were acceptable in Malta. “That’s why I listed the companies in the ‘important section’.”

“If any report made any huge difference to me, it was a national audit report,” she remarked.

Milenović went on to talk about how her report was sectioned, saying she mentioned different levels of corruption in her report. She added that when one has an inquiry, case or investigation, one would need to describe the methods and assumptions made in order to prove or disprove the concept. “That’s the process of an inquiry” she remarked.

Milenović was questioned on the reasoning behind mentioning Malta Enterprise in her report, to which she stated that there were a few documents at the start of the inquiry which she was not able to reach.

Milenović said that she couldn’t find a due diligence report, adding that, for her, “the role of Malta Enterprise in the due diligence process was unclear.”

During the cross-examination, Lawyer Vince Galea, representing former premier Joseph Muscat, requested she provide a list of her qualifications, such as a CV, which Milenović provided during the proceeding.

Whilst Galea was making questions, both the Court and Milenović disputed over the relevance of such questions, leading to Milenović postulating: “I came here because I was asked to come here. This is a time of humiliation for me”.

In a related case, Milenović had also been asked similar questions, where, since she was a one of the court-appointed experts on that case, she was questioned about her qualifications for the role.

In answering a question posed by Galea, Milenović confirmed that after having studied for a five months accountancy course, she had become an accountant. She said that after the course she obtained an ACCA diploma. She further explained how her master's degree in political science, financing of terrorism and money laundering did not include any study-units on accountancy.

Milenović acknowledged that she does not currently hold a warrant to practice as an accountant, though she had one in the past. In recent years, she has shifted her focus from practicing accountancy to providing training. 

When concluding the cross-examination Milenović was asked why she had not disclosed her lack of an active warrant to the inquiring magistrate who appointed her as a forensic accountant, with her promptly responding that she is “an accountant.”

This is an ongoing case.