The catch with Judge Giovanni Grixti's ruling is (and this is where you realise that the Maltese courts have (intentionally or otherwise) no understanding of money laundering), that attempted money laundering is in itself a crime punishable by 3+ years imprisonment. 1/
What does that mean or entail? Money laundering laws set a low threshold for evidence given that, in practice, the machinations that might be employed by launderers or attempted launders could frustrate justice. 2/
In a case of actual money laundering, as the Maltese courts have held in the past and as stated in the law, the threshold needed for the prosecution is prima facie - at face value - that there is no logical or lawful explanation for the monies to be laundered. 3/ 
Once that is proven then it is up to the defendent to prove to the satisfaction of the court that any monies and arrangements were in fact lawful and legitimate. This is the rule for actual money laundering & the threshold + burdens of proof required. 4/
For attempted money laundering, the threshold is yet lower since given that this is an "attempt" one would need to show prima facie the intention & preliminary steps taken to implement that intention. 5/
In Judge Giovanni Grixti's decision to reject even the opening of an inquest to safeguard evidence (ie, not even for a prosecution so the threshold is yet lower) he ruled that he expected a level of evidence that is higher than the prosecution in an actual case of laundering 6/
This is the active part where he stated that is was incumbent on the complainant, here @SimonBusuttil, to prove how the series of events and machinations were illegal (as opposed to the threshold of prima facie no logical or lawful explanation). 7/
Anyone with half a brain can see how bizarre this is. The threshold to request a magistrate to safeguard evidence in attempted laundering which the Police wont investigate is actually higher than that required by the Police to secure a conviction for actual money laundering. 8/
@threadreaderapp unroll
