Freezing order not necessary in Allied Newspapers officials case, court confirms

A judge has dismissed the AG’s appeal against a magistrate’s decision not to impose a freezing order over two of Allied Newspaper’s top management officials charged with fraud and money laundering, saying that it was not necessary as none of the money was in their possession.

Allied Group managing director Michel Rizzo and the company’s former financial controller Claude Licari had been charged with money laundering and fraud, after a largescale police investigation following the conclusion of a magisterial inquiry.

Several other people were charged in related proceedings before that, including former Allied director Vince Buhagiar and former prime minister Joseph Muscat’s chief of staff Keith Schembri.

The arraigning magistrate had granted Rizzo and Licari bail and spared them from having their personal assets frozen, whilst the assets of Progress Press, the printing subsidiary of the Allied

Group, were held under the freezing order.

The Attorney General had filed an appeal against the decision not to impose a freezing order on the men, arguing that the law gave the court no discretion on whether or not to impose the freezing order in relation to the offences they were charged with. The AG had argued that the point of the freezing order was to safeguard the public interest, by preventing the enjoyment of the fruits of criminality.

But in the interim, Rizzo was cleared and so the AG ceased pursuing the freezing order against him. In Licari’s case, the court held that there was an issue of personal criminal responsibility and not vicarious responsibility. That court had found sufficient grounds for the indictment of Licari in his personal capacity.

However, the Criminal Court said that there was no doubt that there were no proceeds of criminal activity in Licari’s accounts – or for that matter in Rizzo’s. It noted that the prosecution had not pursued the freezing order further in Rizzo’s case, but had insisted on it continuing to be in force over Licari’s assets, despite the decision in his case being almost identical to that of Rizzo.

The court ruled that although Licari still has to answer some charges against him, the prosecution’s evidence had demonstrated that none of the money allegedly embezzled was in his possession.

This meant that the freezing order would not serve as a safeguard against the loss of the alleged illicit earnings and would only serve as a “great prejudice” to him through the interference of the State into his legitimately acquired personal property. This would be disproportionate to the legitimate aims of the freezing order and would cause Licari irremediable prejudice, said the court. The request for the freezing order was dismissed.

Lawyer Roberto Montalto appeared for Licari. Lawyer Joe Giglio appeared for Rizzo.