.png)
.png)
Vitals inquiry expert forensic accountant Jeremy Harbinson testifies in court
LIVE BLOG • One of the experts appointed during the magisterial inquiry into the government’s fraudulent hospitals deal with Vitals Global Healthcare, is expected to testify today before the criminal court, just two days after claims for damages arising from his work were filed by two of the defendants in the Vitals case
24 October 2024, 8:46am
Matthew Farrugia
Matthew Farrugia
2 min read
Forensic accountant Jeremy Harbinson (inset) was one of the experts appointed during the magisterial inquiry into the government’s fraudulent hospitals deal with Vitals Global Healthcare (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)
One of the experts appointed during the magisterial inquiry into the government’s fraudulent hospitals deal with Vitals Global Healtcare, is expected to testify today before the criminal court, just two days after claims for damages arising from his work were filed by two of the defendants in the Vitals case.
Forensic accountant Jeremy Harbinson will be taking the stand before madam Justice Edwina Grima in proceedings aimed at challenging the freezing orders issued by the Attorney General following the completion of the magisterial inquiry.
Harbinson had originally been due to testify in September, but could not be reached when the court attempted to establish a video call. He had previously sent a representative of his firm to testify in his stead in another VGH-related case, which was challenging the €20 million freezing orders against Pakistani businessman Shaukat Ali Chaudry and his wife Aasia Parveen Shaukat.
It is hard to fault him for the apparent reluctance to testify, after last month’s brutal courtroom grilling of forensic accountant Miroslava Milenović, who had also been appointed to assist the Vitals inquiry, at the hands of the same defence lawyers.
Defendants seek damages from inquiry expert
Earlier this week, on Tuesday, lawyers for Ronald Mizzi, the erstwhile permanent secretary within the Economy Ministry, filed a judicial letter against Jeremy Harbinson and Harbinson Forensics Limited, claiming the report submitted to the inquiry by the expert contained “technical mistakes, factual errors, selectiveness in the collection of the evidence, mistaken hypothetical conjectures lacking in any basis and other serious shortcomings which are well documented.”
Harbinson’s forensics firm was now in the process of winding up voluntarily, Mizzi’s lawyers added, asking that Mizzi be formally registered as one of the firm’s creditors.
A similar judicial letter targeting Harbinson and his company, but also the now-shuttered firm’s director Cheryl Harbinson, was subsequently filed, yesterday, by lawyers assisting the former permanent secretary at the finance ministry, Alfred Camilleri.
Lawyers Stefano Filletti and Maurice Meli signed both judicial letters, together with lawyer Franco Debono in the case of Camilleri’s.
Matthew Farrugia is a staff reporter at MaltaToday
That concludes today’s court session. A summary of the sitting will be uploaded shortly. Thanks for following.
The next sitting will be be on 31 October at 10am.
The witness is thanked for his testimony and steps off the stand.
The defence refers to the previously mentioned report made by the experts. The report describes the company as an “anonymising source.”
The defence asks if this is an accurate description of the company, to which Camilleri responds in the negative. He explains that the company conducts all the required KYC and due diligence processes.
The second witness for today’s session is Mark Anthony Camilleri from Western Union. He is asked what the company’s obligations are.
He says the company, which has subsequently been bought by Convera, is regulated by the MFSA.
Jeremy Harbinson’s testimony has come to an end. The judge thanks him for his testimony.
The witness is asked whether himself or any other expert in the inquiry suggested that anyone from PwC should speak with the inquiry. Harbinson says that he cannot recall.
When asked why no one suggested this, the witness said that it was up to the inquiring magistrate’s discretion.
The defence further question the witness on a particular transaction between PwC and DF Advocates. The transaction in question is a €150,000 payment to PwC which was only described as “fees.”
Harbinson is once again asked why DF Advocates was flagged as a party in this transaction, but PwC wasn’t, as defence lawyers accuse the witness of “the biggest conflict of interest.”
He retorted that there was no conflict of interest whatsoever, assuring the defence that himself, and the other experts used their best judgements in their investigation.
The defence moves on to ask the witness about his employment history with PwC. Harbinson establishes that he had worked with the company for some 18 years.
The witness is asked whether he knew that PwC were heavily involved in the hospitals’ concession, as the defence noted that the company had assisted Vitals in making its bid for the concession.
Harbinson says he does not recall this fact.
Harbinson states if the company did not feature in his report, they were not flagged as suspicious.
Franco Debono is now probing the witness on a transaction between DF Advocates and Technoline Ltd. He asks whether Harbinson was aware of other law firms that were involved in the transaction.
“There was this transaction by Technoline and Vitals,” Debono states. He asks the witness why one company’s legal representatives (DF Advocates) were flagged for money laundering suspicions, but the other company’s legal firm was not.
Harbinson skirts the question, as the judge repeats the defence’s question.
The witness has now logged back into the video call. He is being asked whether he knows of the distinction between DF Advocates and DF Corporate Services Ltd. He says that he is aware that they are separate legal entities.
The defence notes that the expert’s report mistakenly uses the names of the two entities interchangeably.
The judge and the defence lawyers are currently arguing over whether the court has the legal capacity to determine whether a court expert is competent. Judge Edwina Grima is adamant that the expert’s competence is not a matter that can be determined in these proceedings.
The defence asks whether Harbinson was involved in the recommendation of the issuance of freezing orders for Kenneth Deguara, to which he responds that he wasn’t. The witness further states that he wasn’t involved in the recommendation of any freezing order against the accused.
Harbinson is being asked which expert was responsible for which part of the report, however he states he cannot recall the report was divided between the members. The witness clarifies that he took responsibility for the whole report.
The defence is now questioning Harbinson on a report by the court experts which served as the sole basis of the freezing orders imposed by the Attorney General on the accused in the Vitals case.
The defence further questions the witness on the list of other experts. Harbinson describes a team made up of former consultants for the Northern Irish Police, as well as a number of chartered accountants and IT experts.
Debono gets a dressing down from Judge Edwina Grima, as she notes that Debono is suggesting that the inquiring magistrate chose Harbinson as an expert because she knew him personally.
The judge asks the witness whether he is on the registry of experts, to which he says, “Yes”.
Harbinson says he cannot remember exactly all the experts who assisted in the inquiry. Debono presses the witness to explain how the team of experts was formed, and whether the inquiring magistrate appointed him, or his company, Harbinson’s Forensics Limited.
Harbinson says he received an email from the inquiring magistrate.
Defence lawyer Franco Debono is cross examining Jeremy Harbinson. He is asking today’s star witness to name the experts who were appointed as part of the Vitals inquiry.
Good morning, our reporter Matthew Farrugia is inside court and forensic accountant Jeremy Harbinson is expected to start testfying shortly.