Joseph Muscat challenges €30 million freezing order in court

A lawyer representing disgraced former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has contested the €30 million freezing order imposed on him, arguing that the amount frozen should be based on the €60,000 mentioned in the inquiry.

The asset freeze was imposed during criminal proceedings in connection with the Vitals Global Healthcare scandal.

In a sitting held earlier today before madam justice Edwina Grima, Muscat’s counsel demanded that the prosecution provide clear evidence for the higher figure.

Muscat's lawyer, Ishmael Psaila, pointed out that earlier this week, a similar situation with Sciacca Grill had resulted in the lifting of the freezing order against that company. In that case, Magistrate Rachel Montebello had ruled that there was insufficient evidence to justify the charges against it, leading to the company being discharged.

The lawyer argued that the same standard should apply to Muscat's case.

Additionally, lawyer Stefano Filletti representing Adrian Hillman, who is facing charges of fraud and money laundering, argued that there was no documentary evidence against him and that Hillman had been targeted based on his association with Keith Schembri.  Lawyers Edward Gatt, Mark Vassallo and Shaun Zammit, who are assisting Keith Schembri, Konrad Mizzi, and the companies FSV and Kasco Engineering echoed this argument, stating that the magisterial inquiry was “based on assumptions” and lacked concrete evidence.

The defence called for a reassessment of the evidence, urging the Court to revoke the freezing orders should the prosecution fail to substantiate the amounts and accusations.

Schembri and Mizzi raise Constitutional issue over freezing orders

Lawyer Edward Gatt, who together with lawyers Mark Vassallo and Sean Zammit, is representing Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi, did not request a revocation but rather, sought a constitutional reference, asking the courts to examine the laws that currently regulate freezing orders. The lawyers said this was needed because as they stand, they could lead to breaches of the right to a fair hearing.

Gatt said that proceedings about this issue had become “frustrating and tedious” and were becoming an obstacle to  justice. The Criminal Court upheld the request and referred the issue to the Constitutional Court for a ruling.