Director of travel agency clears name after he was wrongly accused of involvement in scam

8 years is how long it took the director of a travel agency to clear his name after he was wrongly accused of involvement in a scam aimed at defrauding the EU.

Kenneth De Martino was accused of complicity in fraud and knowingly making a false declaration to the authorities in 2010.

58 year-old De Martino, the director of KD Travel Services Ltd, was investigated by OLAF, the European Commission’s antifraud office and Maltese police over expenses fraud by members of the Local Councils Association.

Representatives of local councils travelling to Committee of the Regions meetings had come up with a scheme whereby they would claim reimbursement for first class flights, when they would have in fact travelled in economy class.

The representatives’ tickets would often be purchased from KD Travel Services Ltd, upon the issue of a quotation which would later be presented to the relative authority for reimbursement.

The Court of Magistrates had concluded that the accused, both personally and as director of the travel agency, had not been a party to the fraud which had been committed by third parties to the detriment of EU authorities, and acquitted him in October 2016.

The Attorney General had subsequently filed an appeal on the grounds of an alleged wrong interpretation of the law by the first court, insisting that the accused knew of the fraud.

The court of appeal, presided by judge Giovanni Grixti, declared that it agreed with the conclusions of the first court, pointing out that the acts of the case did not in any way indicate a “common design” between the accused and the perpetrators.

The court had heard defence counsel, lawyer Joseph Giglio, explain that the travel agency director would simply issue an informal, handwritten quotation upon receiving a request for flight tickets. This quotation could not serve as proof of a cash sale or invoice, the defence had argued, insisting that his client was completely unconnected to the scam.

The court of appeal concluded that the decision to present such a “scribbled quotation” to obtain the refund, had been taken solely by the purchaser who “ought not to have dragged the accused into these proceedings,” confirming the absence of guilt on his part.