Court orders Vitals inquiry experts to testify about freezing order amounts in Shaukat Ali Vitals case

Two of the forensic accounting experts who assisted the magisterial inquiry into the fraudulent concession of three public hospitals to Vitals Global Healthcare are to testify about how they arrived at the multi million euro figures subsequently frozen from the defendants.

The Criminal Court, presided by judge Edwina Grima, heard submissions on the case filed by Pakistani businessman Shaukat Ali Chaudhry and his wife, Asia Parveen Shaukat, in which they are challenging the “seize and freeze” orders in criminal proceedings emerging from the magisterial inquiry into Vitals Global Healthcare.

One such order freezing €30 million had been imposed on Shaukat Ali Chaudry and another €20 million freezing order imposed on his wife when they were arraigned on charges of money laundering, trading in influence, misappropriation, promotion and active participation in a criminal organisation and corruption, earlier this month.

On Wednesday morning the court rejected his request for a constitutional reference, with the judge describing it as "vexatious." The judge asked about the defence’s request that she hear evidence to justify the amounts frozen. “Regarding the values there appears to have been no contestation on your part,” remarked the judge.

Lawyer Shazoo Ghaznavi, assisting the couple together with lawyer Jessica Formosa, replied that the way the law was drafted meant that the respondent could not contest the amount at that stage. “The court is bound to issue either a temporary or a permanent freezing order and clearly sets out that if you want to contest you have to go to the Criminal court.” 

He asked that the court hear testimony from key individuals involved in the financial aspect of the inquiry, naming forensic accountants Miroslava Milenovic and Joan Rice, as well as experts Jeremy Harbinson and Dr. Samuel Sittlington.

Prosecutor Shelby Aquilina from the Office of the Attorney General, opposed this request, arguing that the law does not allow for further evidence to be brought at this review stage. Aquilina argued that the freezing order is a provisional measure meant to prevent asset dissipation and that the appropriate stage for challenging evidence is during the compilation of the case, not the review.

But, noting that the Proceeds of Crime Act granted the Criminal Court the power to decide whether or not to issue the seizure and freezing order requested by the prosecution, the judge partially upheld the defence’s request, allowing Milenovic and Harbinson to testify at the next sitting. The judge clarified that their testimonies would be limited to the determination of the amounts involved and would not be allowed to stray into the merits of the case.

The court session is set to continue on August 9 for the witnesses to testify, potentially via videoconferencing