Defence slams double freeze in Aaron Mifsud Bonnici proceedings

A limited freezing order of the assets of Aaron Mifsud Bonnici by the court has been issued alongside the prior attachment order issued before the formal proceedings began.

The freezing order came about following a request by the prosecution. After the court took note, it proceeded to uphold it and issue a freezing order. 

Proceedings against lawyer Aaron Mifsud Bonnici resumed on Wednesday as he faces money laundering, tax evasion and false declaration charges. 

The defence team objected to the freezing order, arguing that the law is clear in stating that an attachment order is to be revoked before a freezing order can be imposed. The court has to revoke one in order to impose another. 

During the initial police investigations in cases involving suspected money laundering, courts often impose the mechanism of an attachment order.  

An attachment order is usually imposed at the pre-trial stage, as a temporary measure while police investigations are still ongoing. It is typically unlimited and broad in scope, freezing all assets of the suspect. Its purpose is to give authorities time to investigate without the risk of assets being transferred or hidden. 

Once the person is formally charged, the law allows the prosecution to request a freezing order. The freezing order issued against Mifsud Bonnici was limited in scope, freezing only a certain amount.

The issue at hand was clear since both orders are currently active and the court issued the freezing order without revoking the previous. 

Despite the freezing order being limited in amount, the previous attachment order still blocks everything. Mifsud Bonnici’s defence lawyers have argued that this practice is an abuse of process, effectively keeping everything frozen without legal basis. 

Lawyers Stephen Tonna Lowell, Stefano Filletti, and Giannella DeMarco argued that the law is clear: once a freezing order is imposed, the court should formally revoke the attachment order. Ultimately, either you proceed to prosecution with clear charges and a freezing order, or you lift the attachment. 

The objection on the part of the defence team was clear, that the law does not intend for both to co-exist indefinitely.