[WATCH] Maltese courts grant Chilean ‘Madoff’ bail against €100,000 deposit

Alberto Chang-Rajii faces extradition to Chile, but insists he's innocent • Video by James Bianchi/MediaToday

Alberto Chang-Raji, a Chilean businessman fighting extradition, may well be spending tonight at Corradino unless he manages to rustle up €100,000 in the next two hours.

Following the court's ruling, upping his bail deposit to €100,000 this morning, Chang-Raji's defence team have spent most of the morning frantically trying to scrape together the monumental sum. 

The freezing order on his Maltese assets adds another layer of difficulty to the Chilean's already challenging situation.

Some ten individuals are understood to have been approached to contribute €10,000 each, but unless the money is physically deposited in court before the registry closes at 3pm, he will not be released from custody today.

The businessman also approached Chilean journalists covering the proceedings, asking them to contribute to his bail fund.

Earlier this morning, Chang-Rajii made his own way to court, arriving by taxi ahead of every other person involved in this case. The irony of this situation was hammered home to great effect by defence lawyers Stefano Filletti and Stephen Tonna Lowell.

Lawyers Elaine Mercieca and Ishmael Psaila from the office of the Attorney General explained to Judge Antonio Mizzi that the public prosecutor wished to contest bail and applied for Chang Rajii's re-arrest, or failing that, the change of the first court's conditions.

The condition of house arrest has been declared unconstitutional in judgements by the Constitutional Court, she said, arguing that if a person who has been arraigned under arrest cannot offer enough guarantees that he will obey the bail conditions, then the court should not grant bail at all.

“House arrest is not an option at all...Home is not a designated prison,” submitted Mercieca.

Chile has requested the extradition of Chang-Rajii in order to face charges of fraud in excess of $100 million, affecting some 100,000 victims, she said. “There are investors who are still coming forward.”

The purpose of his stay in Malta was to maintain his access to his computers and lawyers, said Mercieca. “His stay here will not prevent the tampering with evidence,” the lawyer argued, adding that he simply rents an apartment in Sliema and his application for a residence permit had now been rejected in view of the charges against him.

Significantly, the prosecution also submitted that Police investigations had found that Chang-Raji's assets in Malta have now been transferred abroad.

He was “also an obvious flight risk,” the prosecutor pointed out, arguing that the accused's contestation of his extradition proceedings led them to fear that his intention was not to return to his homeland to face the charges.

The AG was informed by Chilean authorities that, despite the fact that Chilean lawyers are trying to solve the dispute in a civil matter, these civil proceedings will not affect the criminal proceedings against him.

Chang-Raji's defence lawyer, Stefano Filletti, accused the prosecution of scaremongering and offered to bring a character witness to address the issue of whether he would be fleeing the island, but the judge would not admit the request at this stage.

“The accused has been releasing interviews with the media for the past nine months and has maintained that he would be contesting his extradition. How could the police not find him when he had registered his address for IIP?” Filletti asked, before pointing out that Chang-Rajii was arrested at the same residence.

“This is the person who was 'on the run.'”

The Chilean had called his lawyer for guidance when no police officer arrested him this morning, Filletti told the court. “He went to sign at the police station on Saturday, Sunday, and then this morning nobody arrested him.”

“He came to court by taxi!” the lawyer exclaimed. “This is the person who is fleeing justice.”

It was up to the prosecution to prove that depriving the accused of his liberty was necessary, the lawyer said. “It is not up to the defence to prove he is not going to flee.”

In addition to the fact that he had not been shown the police investigation, Filletti highlighted that contesting an extradition was a right, not a “mortal sin.”

The extradition is being contested on the grounds of alleged flaws in the investigation in Chile. “He is trying to avoid what he believes to be a malicious prosecution,” Filletti explained, offering to exhibit an agreement by lawyers in Chile to a settlement of $30 million that could lead to the withdrawal of extradition proceedings.

Granting of bail has nothing to do with the underlying charges, the lawyer argued: “The fact that he is Chilean, a foreigner, does not strip him of his fundamental right to liberty.”

While conceding that house arrest was “not an ideal vehicle” the defence formally declared that Chang would not contest any such order or any variations of the bail deposit.

“He didn't try to hide, he came to court. There is no legal or moral reason to revoke his bail.”