Judge revokes €20 million freezing order following Sciacca Grill’s Vitals criminal case acquittal

A judge has revoked the €20 million freezing order imposed on Sciacca Grill, in view of its discharge from criminal proceedings related to the fraudulent hospitals deal.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Marion Camilleri and David Bonello, representing Sciacca Grill - formerly named Kasco Foods Limited - had challenged the freezing order after a magistrate ordered that the company be discharged from proceedings related to the fraudulent hospitals concession to Vitals Global Healthcare, in which it had been one of the defendants.

The contestation to the freezing order had been filed within the seven day time limit imposed by law. But in the period between the  filing of the contestation and the sitting in which the challenge was meant to be heard, on Wednesday, Sciacca Grill had been discharged.

In its decree on Tuesday, magistrate Rachel Montebello ruled that the acts of the case showed no links between the disgraced former OPM Chief of Staff - who remains one of the other defendants in the criminal case - and the company and that there did not appear to be a case for the company to answer.

The prosecution had insisted that the Attorney General could still appeal that decision and order Sciacca Grill’s re-arraignment and therefore the freezing order should remain in force until that issue was conclusively resolved.

In her decision this morning, Madam Justice Edwina Grima began by pointing out that a compiling court’s decision to discharge a defendant is definitive and brings the compilation of evidence against that person to an end “on those acts and with that evidence which the court had before it, if nothing else is done subsequently.”

While it was true that the AG had the right to request a revision of the decision to discharge a person accused, it had not filed an application asking the Criminal Court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the person discharged by the Court of Magistrates. This meant that Sciacca Grill was currently in the position of a person acquitted of the charges against it.

The procedure set out in the law through which freezing orders can be challenged showed that the legislator intended them to be summary proceedings, as the one month timeframe which applies is “quite short”, noted the judge. “The Court is not given the privilege of waiting for the Attorney General to decide whether or not to contest the decision to discharge and request this court to arrest the discharged person anew…”

The law did not envisage the particular situation faced by Sciacca Grill, noted the court, but said that it undoubtedly meant that the company could not remain subject to a freezing order when the criminal proceedings against it had concluded with its acquittal.

For these reasons, the court revoked the freezing order issued against Sciacca Grill with immediate effect.

READ ALSO: Schembri, Mizzi request for constitutional review of freezing order time limit upheld