Saint James hospital founder, Doctor Josie Muscat, denies he was a front for Shaukat Ali in the Cyclotron deal
Saint James owner denies he was front for Shaukat Ali
12:39 | Sitting adjourned
A Bank of Valletta representative briefly testifies on the submission of Taomac Ltd’s bank accounts, with cross-examining lawyer Veronique Dalli stating “the €64,400 amount is covered”.
The magistrate asks whether everyone has a copy of the inquiry, with no one replying in the negative.
The court asks whether they will be contesting prima facie, which Arthur Azzopardi confirms on behalf of his clients.
The next sitting is scheduled for tomorrow 10.30am.
12:28 | Doctor Josie Muscat
Asked by (Joseph Muscat’s) lawyer Chris Cilia about his involvement in the project, Josie Muscat – the owner of St James Hospital – explains that he was not interested in acquiring the Cyclotron but instead wanted to bring a PET scan machine from Italy.
Muscat says that, back in 2011/12, he received a call from Malta Enterprise to travel to Israel to discuss the purchase of the Cyclotron machine, observing that he found it strange since buying from a nearby country like Italy would have been much easier.
Asked about how exactly Malta Enterprise went about ensuring MTrace’s funding was adequate and what amount was shelled out, Muscat says he was the promoter of the deal, insisting that up until he was involved VGH was not involved in the Cyclotron deal.
The inquiry’s experts noted differently since they said that Shaukat Ali was the main promoter in this deal.
Cilia asks the witness about the business plans he had for this deal, and Muscat replies that he did not have any links with third parties and that all of his plans were solely for his own business.
The inquiry report’s suggests that he was merely a front for Shaukat Ali, but Josie Muscat denies that this was the case.
Julian Delia
12:10 | Joseph Zammit testifies
Joseph Zammit from Malta Enterprise is taking the witness stand, being questioned on the approvals of the ‘cancer machine’, and he confirms that the Cyclotron is in place and fully functional at the moment.
Defence lawyer Arthur Azzopardi wants to know who spearheaded the initiative to implement the Cyclotron and Zammit replies that doctor Josie Muscat spearheaded the process.
Zammit testifies that MTrace, where Brian Bondin came in as shareholder, and Malta Enterprise were involved in the disbursement of grants to finance the final stages of the project. Vitals Global Healthcare (VGH) had failed to invest directly and Steward Healthcare declared they were not interested in the Cyclotron.
Defence lawyer Chris Cilia asks Zammit how Malta Enterprise went about ensuring MTrace’s funding was adequate and what amount was shelled out. Zammit says Malta Enterprise asked RSM Malta Ltd (Labour’s auditors) to verify MTrace’s funding and the value of the deal, €2.05 million in total.
Julian Delia
12:01 | The Cancer Machine
Perit Karl Farrugia takes the witness stand as a representative of Forward Structures Ltd.
He is asked whether he was involved with the Life Sciences Park, and he confirms he was engaged for this briefly in his professional capacity.
In 2014, he says, they were roped in as consultants for structural work in relation to the park’s development, and in 2016 they submitted a second proposal. Both proposals were “ignored”, Farrugia says. In 2018, they were asked to amend the brief to include the Cyclotron – a ‘cancer machine’.
The witness details the extent of his brief, outlining how they were given very specific criteria to follow given the machine’s specifications and high sensitivity to environmental factors. In fact, even an environmental permit needed to be issued from ERA for the machine to operate.
He confirms that the planning authority issued permits but he was not involved until the point in which the environmental permit was presumably issued.
Farrugia is asked about whether he worked with Terracore Ltd, a company specialised in concrete mixing and drilling. He confirms this was the case and that they were engaged to assist with the development of the Life Sciences project.
Terracore Ltd was asked to provide reinforced concrete which would ensure that the radiation inside the Cyclotron chamber does not escape, he explains.
The prosecution asks Farrugia about suppliers who approached them to provide this material. He mentions a representative from Philips, the provider of the Cyclotron, up until the shareholders of the company changed. Brian Bondin eventually was the final individual he spoke to, Farrugia says, and confirms that when asked again whether he spoke to Bondin.
Julian Delia
11:53 | Sciacca Grill documents presented
Claudette Fenech from the Malta Business Registry (MBR) is the next witness. She is being asked about Sciacca Grill Ltd and whether the company presented audited accounts to the MBR.
Fenech presents all the company documents available to the MBR
She is also here to testify about whether David Meli was involved in the companies Steward Malta Ltd, Steward Malta Management Ltd, Steward Malta Assets Ltd, Steward Malta Personnel Ltd, or Nexia BT.
Fenech replies that Meli was never involved in these companies.
Asked by defence lawyer Giannella de Marco whether Mario Gatt was involved in the companies Eurabytes or Nexia BT, Fenech replies in the negative.
Back to Sciacca – the company changed its name from Kasco Foods Ltd (established August 2010) to Sciacca Grill in March 2014.
Julian Delia
11:48 | Witnesses not answering call
The court observes that in spite of its efforts to contact three representatives of Technoline Ltd via video conferencing, the witnesses did not answer the call. The magistrate instructs Technoline’s lawyer Arthur Azzopardi to try contacting them in order to call later.
Julian Delia
11:40 | Christopher Spiteri’s testimonies
The witness is now asked about accusations faced by Spiteri in relation to tax fraud. He is not aware of any kind of relevant information which led to the charges.
Grima: “Do you know whether the inquiring magistrate allowed Spiteri access to a lawyer?”
The witness insists that, as he said during his previous testimony, he cannot speak about what happened in the one hearing he was not present for.
He says that he does not remember whether the inquiring magistrate informed Spiteri of his rights or whether he asked for a lawyer.
Scerry is now saying that the police did ask questions during these testimonies and that they did so only when it was deemed relevant to ask questions which could assist the inquiring magistrate.
Grima presses on to zero in on why the police did not investigate when they were collecting this evidence and as to why the police did not feel the need to investigate when they were gathering this information?
Did they not deem it worth investigating on their own steam? Did they not anticipate that Spiteri should have been cautioned about what questions he must answer?
The witness defers to the inquiring magistrate’s will yet again by default. He says Spiteri’s testimony did not arouse enough suspicions to warrant being cautioned.
Julian Delia
11:33 Scerri’s extent of involvement
During his last testimony, Scerri stated that when carrying out searches, experts assisted with the search – including the sifting through physical evidence.
Lawyer Jason Grima asks Scerri about the extent of his involvement with coordinating the searches and whether he took note of what was collected by these experts.
Scerri says he was overseeing the process through which evidence was gathered and describes the process through which evidence is collected, sealed, and stored.
The former inspector adds that he was not aware of what exactly the magistrate was looking for beyond the instructions he was given.
He was following orders, which mainly consisted of keywords, did not analyse any material, and the police did not collect any evidence for their own purposes.
Julian Delia
11:30 | Investigation on magistrate’s behalf
Grima is now pressing the witness to clarify whether the police carried out any investigations. Magistrate Montebello sounds off a warning about the tone of the defence lawyer, ordering the witness to not respond to allegations of misconduct from the defence.
Anthony Scerri draws a distinction between a parallel police investigation and carrying out investigations on behalf of the inquiring magistrate, with the latter being what he did in this case.
Julian Delia
11:24 | Who requested searches?
In a written request filed to the inquiring magistrate, Gabriella Vella, Scerri spoke about Spiteri’s testimony. He told Vella that after they had analysed his testimonies, they concluded that search warrants should be issued.
Asked by Lawyer Jason Grima about what justified this process, Scerri is claiming it was the inquiring magistrate that analysed the testimonies and issued those warrants.
He is now being asked why he had filed that written request when he is now claiming that it was the inquiring magistrate who carried out the analysis.
Julian Delia
11:19 | Was Inspector Scerri present?
Anthony Scerri is being asked about testimonies by Christopher Spiteri. The then inspector was noted as present in the second hearing but not present in the third and fourth hearings. In fact, apparently, no police officers were in attendance for the third and fourth sittings.
Scerri says he was present but he was not noted as present. He is denying that he was not present and he is being asked why his name was not listed in Spiteri’s last two testimonies.
He replies that this was not his responsibility so he cannot answer as to why the procès-verbal did not note down he was present.
Julian Delia
11:14 | We’re in session
Magistrate Rachel Montebello enters Hall 22 and the court is now in session. The court takes attendance, ensuring that all the defendants are accounted for and legally represented, and former police inspector Anthony Scerri takes the witness stand. In 2022, the inspector responsible for several high-profile corruption cases resigned from the corps. Police sources said Scerri resigned because he had become disillusioned with life in the corps.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
11:12 | Defence with well-defined playbook
The tone of the fireside chat between observers minutes before the case starts is grim. It is becoming increasingly clear that the defence has a well-defined playbook, a significant chunk of which is based on the police’s reluctance to investigate the case.
While it is far too early to draw any conclusions about the evidence which was gathered by the inquiring magistrate – much of which remains unknown to the public – it’s evident we are in it for the long haul.
Julian Delia
11:09 | A possible point of attack
Our colleague Matt Agius, reporting for MaltaToday, explains that in money laundering cases, the burden of proof is inverted onto the accused. That means it is them who must prove the legitimacy of the source of funds.
However, this only applies if and when the accused are given the opportunity to explain the provenance of the funding when formally questioned by the police.
In this case, this did not occur, and it is very likely that the defence will be using this to attack the prosecution’s case.
Julian Delia
10:50 | We are 16,000 on Facebook
Let me use this opportunity to thank all our followers across social media, especially on Facebook where we’ve reached 16,000.
You can follow NEWZ.mt on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, and X.
Please also support The Critical Angle project and follow its Facebook page.
Michael Kaden
10:39 | Bonġu
Good Morning, Malta and Gozo! We’re trying to channel all our energy and enthusiasm into another live blog, naively hoping that this session won’t feel like it’s going on forever. It’s scheduled to start at 11am and Julian Delia will report live from Hall 22.
Michael Kaden
