Julian Delia reports live from Hall 22
LIVE | Vitals Case Day 14
Reporting about this case has become a full-time job for us on certain days. We are not getting paid for delivering this public service, but greatly appreciate your donation to NEWZ.mt using our Revolut payment page.
Please leave a reference to ‘Court Blog’, so we’re able to allocate the amount received to this project.
13:20 | We’re done for today. Watch out for our video summary of today’s sitting at around 5pm. Thanks for following!
13:15 | Speaking on behalf of the defence as a whole, Franco Debono insists that all information related to the appointment of these court experts is important to them and that any information that can be supplied by the CSA’s representative by tomorrow is better than nothing.
The prosecution says that it does not think the information is relevant at this stage. The witness says that the searches will need to be carried out manually and that the database is not easily searchable since all results referring to one particular expert would not just yield payments issued to that expert on one specific case but all payments issued to that expert in relation to all cases they were asked to assist with.
The court is now attempting to whittle down the list of experts solely to the foreigners who were roped in externally, and the defence seems to agree with this suggestion. The witness is also reminded to provide further information about how payment rates were determined and what criteria were used to do so.
This attempt at isolating foreign court experts is not the first one we’ve seen in the criminal cases against former/current representatives of the hospital concessionaires and the government.
We’ve repeatedly seen attempts from the defence at undermining the way these experts were appointed, with multiple instances in which we’ve observed defence lawyers accusing the inquiring magistrate of basing her conclusions solely on what was revealed by these experts.
12:58 | The last witness for today is Marylouise Bugeja, the financial controller of the Court Services Agency.
She is asked about how court experts are paid and how the rates are determined. The witness says that the experts are appointed by the inquiring magistrate and that her office is only involved insofar as the issuance of payments is involved. Experts submit a voucher or invoice which is approved by the inquiring magistrate, after which the payment is issued.
The witness says that her office does not query the amounts listed in those invoices and that they are issued after the magistrate’s approval. Bugeja says that her office keeps records of what payments were issued to these experts, and that she is unaware of how exactly the payment rates for foreign experts involved in this inquiry were determined.
The defence asks the court to order the witness to submit a list of these experts and how much they were paid. The witness says that this information is not readily available but that it can be retrieved if necessary. The witness is uncertain about whether she can obtain this information in time for tomorrow’s hearing.
The magistrate asks the defence about whether this is necessary at this stage or whether it can be left for after the end of the compilation of evidence.
12:42 | Giannella de Marco takes over questioning – she asks the witness about Beat Ltd, RSM Ltd, Ganado Advocates, and Aron Mifsud Bonnici, who were the rest of the individuals on the negotiation committee subcontracted by Projects Malta for this task.
George Gregory is asked about when he received a letter of engagement, and the witness says it was around January 2015. De Marco asks the witness whether they had met with potential investors, and he says that they had met the investors during a presentation given to them about Gozo General Hospital. The presentation was held “in a large room with a lot of people”, the witness says vaguely.
Asked to specify, the witness says there was a lot of professionals and officials attending on behalf of government.
Asked to clarify whether Mifsud Bonnici actually attended these meetings or not, the witness says he does not actually remember whether Mifsud Bonnici was present. The witness is asked whether he remembers any meetings held in February 2015 which involved the original investors. He says that he does remember this meeting being held right after the presentation he just referred to.
The witness briefly explains how the process worked, highlighting how Ganado Advocates were asked to draft the legal framework which governed the request for proposals. He is also asked about Charles Grixti, who represented the health ministry on the evaluation committee. The witness states he is not aware who appointed Grixti to the committee.
He is then asked about who was responsible for deciding who was appointed to the steering committee and the negotiating committee, and he says he is not aware of how this process was regulated.
Moving on to 2017, defence lawyer Giannella de Marco refers to meetings which were held in London about the deal. The witness says that he did attend these meetings, and he is asked to explain more about them.
The meetings were with Steward’s lawyers, and the witness says he attended these meetings along with fellow committee member Katrina Borg-Cardona, a former lawyer who was previously married with Aron Mifsud Bonnici and who passed away recently.
The witness is now asked whether he had testified in front of the inquiring magistrate, and he says that he was not asked to testify in spite of the extent of his involvement, though he was asked to testify by the National Audit Office when it was conducting its probe into the deal. Indeed, nobody from RSM Malta was asked to testify in that inquiry. The police did not ask the witness any questions, either.
Farrugia Sacco now takes over questioning the same witness – Gregory states that no due diligence was carried out by the steering committee and that he does not remember any further details on this matter. The witness steps off the stand.
12:34 | Gregory is asked about the transitory period allowed for by the concession, which allowed for some breathing room for the concessionaires for the first two years of the concession.
The payments made to the concessionaire varied according to what was allocated to the health ministry every year in the budget, and the witness estimates that there was a 50 million euro annual payment issued to the concessionaire.
This fee was paid out to ensure that all expenses related to the management of the hospitals in question were covered (salaries etc…)
The witness is asked to explain what was expected out of the concessionaire for the fees which were awarded to them, and he says that these were paid for services rendered as specified by the concession terms.
The witness is asked to clarify whether any additional obligations were imposed through the pay out of these fees, and the witness says that they were obliged to provide the services requested of them and that’s it.
Besides the annual payment, the concessionaires were also entitled to charging ‘per-bed’ fees, which would cover the provision of bed space to government patients as needed.
Defence lawyer Farrugia Sacco takes over questioning and asks the witness to state who chaired the negotiation committee, and he says that David Galea was in charge.
The witness is asked to state whether VGH was subject to bank financing, and he says that around 20% was supposed to be financed by shareholders and that the rest would be financed by external financing.
The witness states they had not carried out any kind of evaluation about the financing plans, and that it was the prerogative of the evaluation committee only.
Farrugia Sacco: “Did you look into who the UBOs of VGH were?”
Gregory: “No.”
Farrugia Sacco: “Do you know whether Oxley Group had signed any deals with VGH?”
Gregory: “No, I don’t remember.”
Farrugia Sacco: “Who did you give your final report to?”
Gregory: “Projects Malta.”
Farrugia Sacco: “Did you keep any minutes of the negotiations?”
Gregory: “It was very difficult to keep minutes of the negotiations, but we negotiated every paragraph and submitted amendments as necessary.”
The defence asks the witness to explain how the services agreements were drafted, and he says that these were drafted by the CEOs of the hospitals involved in the concession. The defence refers the witness to a clause in the agreement signed with the concessionaire which states that the concessionaire must provide evidence of the financing they secured, and the witness says they had not looked into this financing. The witness says that he remembers Ram Tumuluri obo VGH as a key negotiator on behalf of the concessionaires.
Farrugia Sacco presses on with questioning and asks the witness to state whether they carried out any due diligence about the shareholders, and he says he does not remember what exactly was done in this regard. The witness insists that he was only involved in the negotiation stage.
12:30 | In other news: Roberta Metsola has been re-elected as President of the European Parliament and is the first woman to serve a second consecutive term in this office. The re-election of the Nationalist MEP was considered a mere formality, even when a second candidate entered the race for the presidency on Monday evening.
12:21 | The next witness is George Gregory, accountant and RSM Ltd representative, answering questions about RSM’s involvement in relation to the request for proposals. RSM Ltd was engaged by the government during this stage of the hospitals concession case to serve as consultants during this process.
RSM Ltd was also present on the steering committee, and Gregory is asked to explain his role on the committee. Gregory says that the steering committee was mostly tasked with the ensuring the work streams that emerged from the project were all being attended to.
The witness is asked whether there were any milestones attached with the committee’s work schedule, and he says there was a plan to be followed which was already set out for them when they began. The witness does not remember who came up with that plan.
Answering questions by defence lawyer Stefano Filletti, the witness states that the RfP was then evaluated by the evaluation committee. The negotiation committee, on the other hand, was tasked with hashing out the details of the agreements which would make up the agreements of the concession itself.
The witness is asked about how draft agreements were finalised, and he says that they had finalised a document based on what was negotiated and that it was forwarded to the relevant decision-making entity (the ministry).
12:13 | The next witness is, again, the representative of the treasury department, who was previously asked to provide documentation which shows that from 2015 to 2020, cheques were issued to VGH and Steward Healthcare.
She points out that due to the closure of the treasury’s old data-keeping system, chits referring to these cheques could not be retrieved from the old system.
The witness states that she is only able to reproduce cheque chits from 2020 onward, and submits them to the court as evidence to be added to the acts of the case.
Last week, the same representative had submitted a list which indicated the total amount of payments issued to both VGH and Steward Healthcare since the hospitals concession deal was first inked and signed. In total, those payments amount to over 350 million from 2016 to 2023.
The witness is shown another document and is asked to identify it. She says that the document shows a table with the following data: an internal reference number, who is the recipient of the payment in question, an identifying code which is used by the issuing ministry, the exact value of the payment, and the date it was issued on. The witness further explains that this documentation was largely used for internal record-keeping within the treasury department.
As noted by fellow journalist Monique Agius in Newsbook‘s live blog, Milenkovic was also appointed as one of the court experts used in the Egrant inquiry. At the time, defence lawyers hired by government executives did not seem to have an issue with Milenkovic’s work. At no point in time did anyone try to attack the way in which she was appointed or the quality of her work.
12:06 | Walking back in after the break and taking the stand again, Katya Caruana, director within the justice department, states that the experts appointed by inquiring magistrate Gabriella Vella were not on the list of experts which went through the court’s formal processes.
11:35 | The sitting is suspended until 12:00 noon.
11:28 | Defence lawyer Stefano Filletti picks up where his colleague Franco Debono left off, practically interrogating Caruana using the same questions and receiving the same answers. Today’s questioning feels more like a fishing expedition than a process meant to establish facts.
Lawyer Giannella de Marco. Same questions, same answers – or lack thereof whenever the witness is not in a position to respond. We won’t even bother noting that down.
Katya Caruana steps off the stand.
11:13 | The next witness is Katya Caruana, director within the justice department. She is asked to explain how court experts are paid, and she says that payments are issued through the Court Services Agency.
She has no clue about anything related to these experts, and she is unable to testify about this. Magistrates have total discretion about who they choose to appoint as court experts, and can just about explain that said experts can either approach the court themselves to express they are interested in serving as experts. Due diligence is carried out about each individual as necessary.
The witness is asked to explain whether any specific due diligence was carried out about the experts utilised by the inquiring magistrate, and the witness says she is only able to check if a list of names is handed to her.
The defence asks the witness to determine whether competence is assessed before someone is appointed as an expert. Caruana says that an auditing firm assesses the due diligence forms and that competence is established through the documentary evidence which is submitted in the application process (e.g.: a warrant).
The court rephrases the defence’s question and insists that the witness must clarify whether there is someone who greenlights experts and vets applications for any outstanding examples of questionable conduct.
The defence’s questions seem to be leading to a potential attempt to discredit one particular forensic analyst appointed by the inquiring magistrate, Miroslava Milenkovic. She was the only court expert cited by name in the defence’s questions about this today.
The witness is unable to answer questions about who exactly would be in charge of ensuring that all court experts appointed by the court are of good integrity and standing, arguing that she is not authorised to answer such a question. The witness says that the court would need to effectively rely on the due diligence forms which would have been filled in by the applicant themselves, with Debono repeatedly stopping to gloat about how he had tried to reform this legal lacuna but had not managed to do so.
11:06 | Joseph Zammit, the chief finance officer at Malta Enterprise who previously testified at length on the Cyclotron project, takes the witness stand … and is told his testimony is not needed. Zammit steps off the stand.
11:03 | The next witness is Alison Delecia, the former corporate director of VGH. Defence lawyer Joseph Mizzi takes over questioning. Delecia says she knew Deborah Ann Chappell and explains that Chappell was their in-house legal counsel.
After that, the witness no longer worked directly for VGH but instead began working for Ram Tumuluri personally. Delicia steps off the stand.
10:52 | Much to the chagrin of practically everyone else in the courtroom, Franco Debono insists on lecturing the court about why he believes the request is justifiable.
Debono further argues that it is totally incorrect for the previous witness to state that he did not believe the accused were being searched as suspects when the search warrant itself clearly referred to the alleged breaches of the criminal code which DF Advocates are accused of.
Fellow defence lawyer Michael Schriha seconds Debono’s point, further arguing that such a situation may endanger the legal right to confidentiality at large.
The prosecution’s rebuttal – the prosecution objects to the request filed by the defence due to the fact that at this stage, this court is serving as a compilatory one and is not empowered to expunge such documents.
Lead prosecutor Francesco Refalo further adds that, without going into the merit of how the search warrant was issued (given that it is not yet necessary), this court must solely gather evidence.
If this court accepts the request made by the defence just now, it would be going over and above the purpose of the proceedings at this stage, over and above that which the law empowers it to do.
If anything, the prosecution argues, this should be an issue that is dealt with at a later stage, not now. Debono rebuts immediately, repeating his previous arguments about legal privileges and the rights one would have when served with a search warrant under caution.
The row escalates into a tedious back and forth, with the defence further rebutting that the evidence must be assessed even at this stage because it would not be appropriate for any kind of evidence to be admitted if it is in fact inadmissible according to law.
Debono then goes into the downright bizarre, citing unrelated cases in foreign jurisdictions in which the suspects were set free due to the lack of full disclosure from the prosecution.
10:45 | The defence (obo Kevin Deguara, Jean-Carl Farrugia, DF Advocates) submits a request calling on the court for the expungement of all documents, devices, and material which was seized according to this search warrant from August 2021 since this was carried out in clear breach of Articles 355G and 355AUA.
10:41 | George Frendo steps back on the witness stand and is shown a copy of the search warrants again. He reads out the brief attached with the search warrant that authorised the raid on DF Consultancy’s offices (and Jean-Carl Farrugia’s property). The second search warrant refers to Kevin Deguara.
The court asks the witness to explain how he interpreted those instructions and what status he considered them to be in (as suspects or not). The witness says again that they were not considered suspects, and that he only interpreted it to refer to seizing property from these offices.
Magistrate: “Was it indicated to you that the documents in question would be kept in a separate storage unit?”
Witness: “No, I don’t remember how exactly they were stored, though I would have asked Dr Deguara to show me where everything was.”
The witness is asked to describe the office’s layout, and he more or less describes what it looked like: it was split into two main offices and a reception area. The witness steps off the stand.
10:34 | Former FCID inspector George Frendo responds with similar answers every time, trying to remember details whenever possible and stating that he is unable to respond whenever he is unable to recall specific details.
The defence asks the witness to clarify yet again whether anyone at DF Advocates was considered a suspect, and the witness says that he is not aware whether this was the case.
Franco Debono loses the plot completely about this point and insists that such a search warrant would only be issued if and when a company is considered a suspect.
The court raps Debono for raising his voice at both the witness and the court itself, after which fellow defence lawyer Ezekiel Psaila asks the witness to step out of the courtroom so the defence and the court can debate this point of law.
Psaila explains that the documentation held at the offices where the search in question was carried out were held in segregation according to law (legal firms sharing offices must keep different documents separate and can be subjected to audits to verify this is the case).
Psaila further insists that the witness should have been aware of this and that, as a police officer carrying out such seizures, the witness should have been aware that these documents would in fact be kept separate and that the officers had no right to seize documentation which was meant to be kept separate.
Citing 355(A)(A) from Cap. 355, Franco Debono further insists that the accused’s rights were not read out to them and that the witness must clarify why this was the case.
10:20 | George Frendo asks the court to read out the content of the search warrant, pointing out that he was clearly authorised to carry out a search on the address which DF Advocates was listed in, which is the same address in which DF Consultancy is listed.
The inquiring magistrate did not ask the witness to determine whether the documentation present at the address in question belonged to one or the other.
The defence asks the witness whether he was aware that multiple companies were registered at the same address, and he says that it was not within his competence to determine whether this was the case.
Insisting, lawyer Franco Debono asks the witness one more time to determine whether they did anything to verify whether the documentation they picked up was covered by legal confidentiality principles or not. The witness remarks yet again that it was not their role to verify this.
The defence continues wearing down the witness, showing him one seizure note after the other (for every seized item, a separate note is issued) and asking him about whether they took the time to assess whose property it was.
The witness states that besides the search warrant which was assigned to him (in the name of DF Consultancy and Jean-Carl Farrugia) and that there was another search warrant issued in Kevin Deguara’s regard. He was not linked with this second warrant and cannot testify to its contents.
The defence continues asking the same questions about each and every individual seizure note related to the searches carried out at DF Advocates’ offices.
Debono: “How did you pick up these documents? Who handed them to you? Were any of these individuals suspects?”
10:13 | The witness, former FCID inspector George Frendo, is handed a list of the keywords, and he confirms that DF Advocates was not on the list.
The defence asks the witness to explain how documentation pertaining to DF Advocates was seized if the search warrant did not refer to the correct company and DF Advocates was not listed as a keyword.
The witness is shown a document which bears DF Advocates’ logo and shows it is their property, not the property of DF Consultancy.
“If you look at the name of the file, you can see it refers to Shapoorji Pallonji Group, which was one of the keywords we had. As I said, if it matches a keywords, we picked it up, we couldn’t check every single document,” Frendo insists.
The defence pushes the witness further, insisting that the police’s right to execute such a search warrant does not extend to legally privileged documentation of the kind exhibited by the defence just now (Cap. 355 Article 355G(1)).
The defence asks the court to direct the witness to look at copies of the seizure notes which were submitted as part of the evidence accompanying the inquiry report. The defence asks the witness whether they verified whether the property they seized belonged to DF Consultancy and not DF Advocates. The witness sticks to his earlier responses, and the magistrate reminds the defence that 25 minutes have passed and the witness is not able to respond beyond what he already said.
10:04 | The defence repeatedly points out that a distinction must be made between DF Consultancy Ltd (which was the actual company cited in the search warrant) and DF Advocates, which the accused had previously explained was a trade name and not the actual name of a registered company at the time when the alleged criminal offences related to the concession deal were committed.
Debono: “How were you sure that the property you seized was owned by DF Consultancy Ltd and not DF Advocates Ltd?”
George Frendo insists that they only seized documentation which fell under the criteria of the keywords set out by the inquiring magistrate. Debono suggests that if DF Advocates Ltd was one of the keywords, then evidence related to it was seized.
The defence points out that they were given access to these keywords and that DF Advocates was not listed among them. The prosecution intervenes, pointing out that the witness was solely following the inquiring magistrate’s orders. The court is asked to refer to the list of these keywords.
09:59 | George Frendo explains that when they were tasked with carrying out searches related to Jean-Carl Farrugia, Kenneth Deguara had informed them that Farrugia was abroad when those searches were carried out.
The former FCID inspector explains that they were carrying out searches related to the keywords which the inquiring magistrate had assigned to the team of police officers. After the searches, Frendo testified about the results of those searches in front of the inquiring magistrate.
The defence asks the witness whether they ensured that the only lifted evidence which was strictly related to the keywords and whether any distinction was drawn between privileged information in the lawyers’ office and the information they were asked to lift, and the witness confirms this was the case.
Frendo says that, before carrying out the searches, the suspects were all informed about why the searches were being carried out and that a search warrant had been issued by the inquiring magistrate to authorise the raid.
The defence asks the witness to explain what documentation was taken as evidence and whether he can provide a detailed explanation about what was seized.
The former police inspector states that though he does not remember the exact details from this search which he was involved in three years ago, he does know that all of the evidence was logged in according to standard seizure protocols and that there should be documentation attesting to this, including his own testimony in front of the inquiring magistrate.
09:54 | Franco Debono starts questioning the next witness, George Frendo who was an inspector in the FCID up until 2021.
He was previously tasked with executing search warrants which were issued against DF Consultancy Ltd. The defence hands him a copy of the search warrant in question, which he verifies as authentic.
Frendo is asked whether he can draw a distinction between judicial persons (the companies) and the individuals who are linked with the firm (Jean-Carl Farrugia, Kevin Deguara, Kenneth Deguara), and Frendo says he does.
The former inspector details how the searches were carried out, explaining that he was under orders from his superiors to carry out multiple searches in relation to the legal firm. Frendo is asked about the role of Sergeant Shaun Spiteri in the search, and the witness explains that Spiteri was also following orders from the same superiors.
09:50 | The next witness is Andrei Vella who used to be Gateway Solutions’ lawyer. Previously, Vella was asked whether he would be able to obtain a release from client-confidentiality obligations with this company.
Defence lawyer Franco Debono asks whether Vella asked the client to be released from his confidentiality and Vella says he wasn’t because his firm is no longer in contact with the client.
Vella is asked whether he can respond to queries about his firm’s involvement in the concession through their legal consultancy on behalf of Gateway Solutions, and he does, arguing that their involvement was limited to assisting the company at hand. He steps off the stand.
09:46 | The first witness – the one we missed ‘thanks’ to the court administration – was a representative of the treasury asked to provide some documentation. However, it seems there was a misunderstanding, so she will be testifying again at around noon because she is to check about this documentation.
09:42 | Ridiculous! Today’s sitting just started and the door to the gallery of Hall 22 is still locked. Monique Agius from Newsbook had to walk into the hall to ask one of the court’s staff members to open the gallery. However, we journalists are still waiting outside.
09:40 | Good Morning! Julian Delia reports from Hall 22 again where the criminal case against former health minister Chris Fearne, Central Bank governor Edward Scicluna and other defendants in connection to the fraudulent Vitals hospitals privatisation deal continues.
