Confiscation of cocaine trafficker's house revoked by court

The courts have revoked the confiscation of a house belonging to a man convicted of cocaine trafficking, ruling that the house's purchase had predated the crimes and had clearly not been bought with drug money.

Norman and Maria Anna Bezzina, husband and wife filed a case against the Commissioner of Police in 2014 requesting the revocation of a court-imposed seizure of the man's assets.

Norman Bezzina had been accused in 2001 of possessing and conspiring to traffic cocaine and was later found guilty and jailed, his verdict being confirmed on appeal in February 2014. Maria Anna Bezzina was simply a party to the community of acquests and had not even been charged in connection to the case. The confiscation of her half of the community of acquests was “entirely illegal and impossible to call legitimate,” Bezzina's lawyer, Maria Cardona, had argued.

In a separate case, the Court of Criminal Appeal had confirmed the confiscation of all the guilty party's movable and immovable property, in favour of the Government, as is laid down by the law for drug trafficking cases.

Bezzina applied for a revocation of the order confiscating his assets, arguing that the movable and immovable property seized had been bought long before 2001 and was not in any way linked to drugs. At the time, the plaintiff said, he had never had any dealings with drugs or derived any income from drugs.

He argued that the seizure violated his rights under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, highlighting similarities to the case Welsh versus United Kingdom, where the UK had been found to have breached the applicant's article 7 rights by retroactively applying laws that weren't in force at the time of the offence.

The matrimonial home had been bought in 1996, although it had been finished after 2001. Some €60,000 of the money used to finish the property had been received by Norman Bezzina in 2004 as compensation for a permanent disability he had suffered whilst working in Canada before 1989.

The First Hall of the Civil Court, with judge Anna Felice presiding, noted that the Commissioner of Police was correct in his objection to the claim, on the grounds that article 7 of the European Convention is entirely irrelevant to the case, as the applicants themselves had filed their case on the basis of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

The court noted that jurisprudence had established the requirement of a higher level of proof to be brought by those contesting such seizures, “greater than a simple, vague, declaration that the applicant had other reserves or resources to live on.”

However, on the subject of the property, the court noted that no evidence had been submitted to show that Bezzina had been involved in drug trafficking in 1992 when the property was acquired. Bezzina had been in employment before he had been caught trafficking drugs and had received a lump sum compensation, noted the court, saying it was satisfied that the matrimonial home was not bought using drug money.

“It follows that there is no reason for the court to doubt that this property was not acquired using earnings or profits from the crimes.” The court said the same could be said for the 5 vehicles registered in the accused's name several years before the crimes for which he was convicted took place.

The order confiscating the property was revoked.