Malta Court Upholds Asset Freeze Against Keith Schembri and Associates

Constitutional Challenge Dismissed

The First Hall of the Civil Court in Malta, sitting in its constitutional jurisdiction, has upheld a blanket freezing order on the assets of former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri, his father Alfio Schembri, Malcolm Scerri, and Robert Zammit. The ruling, delivered on November 7, 2025, dismissed their constitutional challenge which argued that the 2021 order breached their fundamental rights.

Presiding judge Giovanni Grixti concluded that while the freezing order is restrictive, it does not violate fundamental rights because alternative legal remedies are available to the affected individuals.

Background to the Freezing Order

The blanket freezing order was initially imposed in 2021 after Keith Schembri and the three other individuals were charged with serious financial crimes. These charges include money laundering, criminal conspiracy, fraud, and forgery, primarily linked to the Allied Newspapers printing press deal.

Under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the order significantly restricted their financial access, allowing them only €14,000 annually for living expenses. The plaintiffs had argued that this measure effectively treated them as guilty before judgment and deprived them of the peaceful enjoyment of their property.

Arguments and Court's Rationale

The constitutional challenge centered on the claim that the law did not permit a request to revoke such an order before criminal proceedings concluded, thereby infringing upon their right to a fair hearing and property rights.

However, Judge Grixti highlighted that the law provides mechanisms for individuals to seek court authorization for specific transactions. These include settling debts incurred in good faith before the order was made or transferring property with judicial approval. The court noted that these remedies had not been fully utilized by Keith Schembri, who confirmed he had not applied for such authorizations.

The judge further remarked that freezing orders, though causing discomfort, serve a crucial purpose: to prevent the potential concealment or disposal of assets suspected to be derived from criminal activity. The court found no evidence of a breach of fundamental rights, asserting that the legislation offers sufficient exceptional mechanisms to safeguard constitutional rights.

Legal Representation

The plaintiffs were represented by lawyers Edward Gatt and Mark Vassallo. The State Advocate's Office was represented by lawyers Julian Farrugia and Yana Bonello.