Court rejects freezing order challenge by Keith Schembri, Konrad Mizzi over Vitals charges
A judge has rejected as groundless the claimed human rights breach caused by the freezing and seizure orders imposed on Keith Schembri, Konrad Mizzi, Karl Cini, Brian Tonna, David Meli, Mario Victor Gatt, Clarence John Conger Thompson, together the c
A judge has rejected as groundless the claimed human rights breach caused by the freezing and seizure orders imposed on Keith Schembri, Konrad Mizzi, Karl Cini, Brian Tonna, David Meli, Mario Victor Gatt, Clarence John Conger Thompson, together the companies they represent, in the course of criminal proceedings over the Vitals Global Healthcare scandal.
Schembri, Chief of Staff to disgraced former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, Muscat’s former health and energy minister Konrad Mizzi as well as Muscat himself have individually been slapped with “seize and freeze” orders.of €30 million each as part of criminal proceedings in which they are charged with a bevy of offences which include money laundering, fraud and making fraudulent gain, as well as conspiracy to commit an offence and participating in a criminal organisation with more than 10 members.
They are also being charged with accepting bribes and corruption while in public office. Muscat’s disgraced former Chief of Staff Keith Schembri is accused of soliciting bribes and abuse of his office.
Konrad Mizzi, Clarence John Conger Thompson, Mario Victor Gatt, MTrace plc, Karl Cini, Nexia BT, Brian Tonna, David Joseph Meli, Keith Schembri, Kasco Engineering Company Limited and FSV Limited had filed constitutional proceedings, alleging breaches of several rights, amongst them that of equality of arms.
In a judgement handed down earlier today, Mr. Justice Mark Simiana said that it had not been proven that the defendants would suffer any fundamental human rights as a result of the orders.
“It is true that [the legal pathway to vary the amounts subject to seize and freeze orders] does not appear to grant the accused the right to contest the legal basis for the order, but it is a remedy which leads to variation in its extension and all of its effects. One has to wait and see, in the actual case and not hypothetically, whether this remedy…is an effective remedy to the person accused.” said the judge, rejecting the argument that the amounts frozen were disproportionate, while pointing out that the defendants could request a variation at any stage of the proceedings.
It is understood that the defendants intend to file an appeal.
Related
Share this page
Guest Posts by Easy Branches
