.png)
.png)
Vitals inquiry expert could not recall PwC's central role in Vitals' concession
Defence lawyers tore into one of the experts in the Vitals inquiry for seemingly failing to flag PwC throughout the investigation, as they further claimed conflict of interest due to the fact that he was an employee for the company for 18 years
24 October 2024, 8:46am
Matthew Farrugia
Matthew Farrugia
3 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)
In a somewhat heated court session, defence lawyers for a number of defendants in the Vitals case have claimed that one of the court experts engaged in the inquiry was appointed as an expert despite a conflict of interest.
The claim centres around the fact that Jeremy Harbinson, the owner of an Irish forensics firm that is currently being liquidated, had worked as an employee for PwC for 18 years until 1998.
The defence tore into the witness for seemingly ignoring the central role PwC played in the hospitals concession, as they questioned why the company was never flagged by the inquiry for its involvement in the deal. On the witness stand, Harbinson did not recall that PwC had even assisted Vitals in making its bid for the concession.
Throughout the cross-examination, the defence questioned whether the expert’s integrity was affected by him having worked at PwC, as defence lawyer Franco Debono stated he had full trust in the inquiring magistrate.
The lawyers further slammed the experts for failing to speak to any PwC employee during the investigation.
During today’s sitting, Harbinson was also asked to identify the team of experts involved in the inquiry. However, he admitted he could not recall all the names of those who had assisted.
The defence pressed for details on how the expert team was formed and whether the inquiring magistrate had appointed Harbinson personally or his company, Harbinson's Forensics Limited. Harbinson clarified that his involvement started from an email he received from the inquiring magistrate.
During the sitting, Judge Edwina Grima did not allow Debono’s line of questioning regarding whether Harbisnons’ company is in liquidation, telling the defence lawyer to pose such questions in the criminal case itself, rather than in the proceedings regarding freezing orders.
Further questioning by the defence focused on the composition of the expert team. Harbinson described a group that included former Northern Irish Police consultants, as well as chartered accountants and IT specialists.
However, when pressed on the roles each expert played in the report that gave recommendations for freezing order amounts, Harbinson was unable to provide specific details, stating that he had taken responsibility for the entire report.
An exchange followed between the defence and Judge Grima over the court’s authority to assess the competence of court experts, with the judge maintaining that such determinations fell outside the scope of the current proceedings.
During the session, Harbinson was also asked whether he knew of the distinction between DF Advocates and DF Corporate Services Ltd, after the expert report reportedly used the names interchangeably. Harbinson acknowledged that they were separate entities, but the defence argued that the mistake cast doubt on the report’s accuracy.
The defence further probed a financial transaction between DF Advocates and Technoline Ltd, questioning why DF Advocates had been flagged for money laundering suspicions while the other law firms involved were not. Harbinson evaded a direct answer, prompting the judge to reiterate the defence’s inquiry.
Following Harbinson’s testimony, the court turned to the second witness of the day, Mark Anthony Camilleri from Western Union.
Camilleri was questioned about the company’s regulatory obligations, explaining that Western Union, now owned by Convera, is regulated by the MFSA. The defence referred to the expert report, which had described Western Union as an “anonymising source.” Camilleri rejected this characterisation, stating that the company follows all required KYC (Know Your Customer) and due diligence procedures.
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.
Judge Edwina Grima did not allow Debono’s line of questioning regarding whether Harbisnons’ company is in liquidation, telling the defence lawyer to pose such questions in the criminal case itself, rather than in the proceedings regarding freezing orders.
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.