Amendments to freezing orders law clears parliament’s Second Reading

An amendment to legal framework regulating freezing orders has cleared Second Reading in parliament and now moved to committee stage.

Government MPs voted in favour, while Opposition MPs voted against after a division was requested from the Opposition benches.

The new Act proposes a common procedure that ensures the proportionality of garnishee orders, freezing orders and confiscation orders in money laundering proceedings.

Garnishee orders in related proceedings will now be valid for six months and subject to variations as well as the release of funds to ensure a decent standard of living.

Prosecutors applying for freezing orders will now have to specify what property or how much money is to be frozen within 90 days of arraignment and the decision to uphold the requests for such an order will now be subject to appeal before the Criminal Court. As the law currently stands, persons subject to freezing orders are allowed to withdraw less than €13,000 annually.

Moreover, the amounts frozen may be varied upon a request by one of the parties and the defendant will be allowed to withdraw a maximum of the average annual salary, as determined by the Minister, in order to live a decent lifestyle.

Additionally, defendants struck by such orders will be able to ask the court to allow them to continue operating their business, trade or profession. Requests for withdrawals for recurring expenses, such as loans, insurance payments and school fees, which currently require applications to be filed and upheld for every such withdrawal, will now be made only once.

The amendments have received harsh criticism from Nationalist MPs, who accused government of trying to rush it through before Christmas recess.

Speaking in the House last week, Nationalist MP Karol Aquilina questioned who the government is trying to protect, hinting at former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat.

Speculation has been mounting that the former PM could be charged in connection with the fraudulent hospitals deal.

The Nationalist MP raised specific doubts about the planned revisions to the procedures regulating seizure orders and freezing orders during his address.

MaltaToday questioned Muscat on Aquilina’s claims, with the former PM saying he believes amendments are a result of a number of cases government had lost in the past.

“It’s a sign that the Nationalist Party knows something that I don’t,” Muscat said when questioned on the MP’s claims.