'Lilu King' brother and associate charged over witness' intimidation claims

Two Libyan men have been remanded in custody on charges of attempting to intimidate a witness in criminal proceedings against Mohamed El Mushraty, known by his nickname “Lilu King.”

Two Libyan men, Mohaned Ali Ahmed Massarati, 31 and Mahmoud Mustafa Mohammed Aldabah, 27, were arraigned before magistrate Rachel Montebello on Wednesday afternoon, accused of attempting to suborn a witness in ongoing court proceedings and recidivism.

The charges came after a sitting in ongoing criminal proceedings against Mohammed Elmushraty, who is accused of participation in organised crime, money laundering and tax evasion, on Monday. During that sitting, a witness told the court that he had been approached by the defendants and told to mislead the court when testifying about Elmushraty’s Range Rover, bearing the number plate “Lilu King.”

Police Inspector Tomjoe Farrugia, prosecuting together with inspector Marshal Mallia, told the court that the men had been arrested after a witness in other criminal proceedings told the court that they had approached him and attempted to make him change his testimony.

Immediately after this testimony was given, the police arrested the men, who had been outside the courtroom, waiting to testify, said the inspector.

READ ALSO: Three charged over organised crime, drug trafficking remanded in custody

Inspector Farrugia was cross-examined by defence lawyer Charles Mercieca, telling the court that the defendants had visited the witness and urged him to tell the court that one of the Range Rovers seized  (number plate “Lilu King”) was registered and owned by that witness. 

The inspector confirmed that the vehicle in question was, in fact, registered in the name of that witness.

Wearing Versace glasses and what appeared to be white Christian Louboutin ankle boots with spiked, gold toe caps, Massarati told the court his occupation was “student.”  Aldabah told the court that he was unemployed.

The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges and requested bail.

Both men resided at Pendergardens, said their lawyer, attempting to rebut the prosecution’s statement that neither defendant had a fixed address in Malta.

The prosecution objected to bail, arguing that the witness who had been approached was afraid of the defendants and had approached the police for this reason. Inspector Marshall Mallia told the court that Massarati had only arrived in Malta five days ago, while Aldabah had only been released from prison last month and had no fixed address in Malta. 

During his interrogation, Massarati had told the police that he lived in Holland and had only come to Malta for a short stay. He made no mention of Pendergardens, said the inspector.

Neither had Aldabah, who told the police he was living with a friend as he had no fixed address.

Inspector Mallia told the court that when Aldabah had been arrested in connection with the Elmushraty case, he was found to be living in Elmushraty’s apartment in Portomaso, sleeping on the sofa. He had not provided the police with an address. 

Mercieca insisted that the men’s actions did not satisfy the legal requirements for the offence of subornation to subsist and suggested that they were being arraigned because a witness against their brother had “decided to say that they spoke to him to tell him something which is confirmed by other evidence.”

The lawyer further suggested that the men had been arrested because the prosecution “wanted to arrest them.” 

At this point, Inspector Mallia interrupted the Mercieca’s submissions to say that this was not true and ask the lawyer to “kindly refrain from defaming me.”

The witness was either suborned or not, you can’t object to bail because of the risk of suborning the same witness, argued Mercieca. 

Inspector Mallia replied to the defence’s arguments, and pointed out that one of the men had been found guilty of two breaches of bail conditions.

“The prosecution believes that they will approach other witnesses,” clarified the inspector.

Mercieca insisted that the risk was hypothetical and argued that only one witness could be expected to be produced by the prosecution in this case - the witness allegedly suborned yesterday. 

The court denied bail in view of the lack of strong ties to the community on the part of the defendants and because it was not convinced that they would not attempt to abscond if released from arrest. This in addition to the fear of them further tampering with evidence, “in view of the fact that the witness named in the charges had been threatened.”

The men were remanded in custody.

Lawyers Charles Merceica and Gianluca Caruana Curran were defence counsel.