Shaukat Ali lawyers ask for constitutional reference over €30 million freezing order

A Criminal Court judge is expected to rule next week on a request to refer a fundamental rights issue raised by the man alleged to be at the centre of the VGH hospitals scandal, to a court of constitutional jurisdiction. 

The constitutional reference was requested by lawyers Shazoo Ghaznavi and Jessica Formosa on behalf of Shaukat Ali Chaudry, Mount Everest FZ LLC, Global Assets Holdings Limited, and Shaukat’s wife, Aasia Parveen Shaukat, in a sitting before Madam Justice Edwina Grima earlier today. 

Shaukat Ali Chaudry had been slapped with a seize and freeze order for the sum of €30 million and another order to the tune of €20 million imposed on his wife when they were charged with money laundering, trading in influence, misappropriation, promotion and active participation in a criminal organisation and corruption, earlier this month.

The judge was hearing submissions on the Attorney General’s request to convert the temporary freezing and seizing orders already issued by the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry, to permanent ones. 

The couple’s assets had been placed under a temporary seizing and freezing order upon their arraignment. The purpose of a freezing order is to stop a person accused of a relevant crime or the crime of money laundering from disposing of the monies or property which is derived from criminal activity.

The law allows the Attorney General seven working days after that, to file an application to the Criminal Court, requesting that the temporary order be converted to a permanent one, and this is what the AG has, in fact, done. The defence lawyers are arguing that the Proceeds of Crime Act does not contemplate any contestation of seizing and freezing orders once they become permanent.

The defence counsel flagged the possibility that Aasia Parveen Shaukat could potentially suffer a violation of her fundamental human rights to property and to a fair hearing, and asked the Criminal Court to refer the matter to the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. 

“If this court were to uphold the request for a permanent freezing order, there is no way that she can contest it,” Ghaznavi said. “The law does not envisage the possibility of contesting a permanent Seize and Freeze order.”

As this potentially breaches the right to a fair hearing, especially the principle of equality of arms, together with the right to enjoy property, the lawyers asked the Criminal Court to refer the matter to a court of constitutional jurisdiction for a ruling. They also asked that an effective remedy be granted if a breach is found.

The judge adjourned the case to Wednesday for a ruling.