The Harbinson Files: Scrutiny of Expert Evidence in Malta

Multiple proceedings, reports connected with freezing orders and unanswered questions about professional qualifications, corporate records and accountability. The Jeremy Harbinson story deserves closer examination.

Jeremy Harbinson

When expert evidence becomes a question in its own right

Jeremy Harbinson’s work in connection with multiple Maltese proceedings raises a question that goes to the heart of justice: how thoroughly should an expert’s evidence be examined when it may affect people’s financial interests, reputations and legal rights?

Harbinson has been associated with assignments involving Maltese cases in which his reports and professional work have attracted attention. Questions have subsequently been raised about the nature of those assignments, his professional status, the availability of historical documentation and the company through which the work was reportedly undertaken.

These issues must be examined individually. Together, they raise important questions about how expert material is prepared, documented and used in judicial proceedings.

The issue is particularly significant where reports may have contributed to proceedings involving freezing orders affecting numerous individuals. For those whose assets are restricted, the distinction between an established fact, an analytical inference and an unverified allegation can have substantial practical consequences.

The Milenovic development

The reported court decision ordering the prosecution of Miroslava Milenovic over allegations of unauthorised forensic accounting has added a new dimension to the debate.

Milenovic has previously testified in different inquiries. A court has now ordered her prosecution in connection with allegations that she performed forensic accounting activities without the required authorisation. The protection afforded to her by inquiring magistrates has been lifted in the interests of justice.

Milena Milonevic

These developments must also be considered in relation to Harbinson, whose activities are just as suspect as Milenovic’s.

The company, the records and the professional engagement

Three areas warrant particular attention.

First, Harbinson’s professional qualifications and authorisations must be assessed.

Second, the reported dissolution of companies associated with the assignments raises practical questions about contracts, invoices, correspondence, working papers and the preservation of records. More importantly, it also raises suspicions of criminal intent.

Third, questions have been raised about the tax treatment of income associated with the assignments and about potential conflicts of interest or relationships involving members of the wider team.

The defence teams have collated a vast amount of intelligence and look forward to confronting Harbinson.

Why the reports matter

Harbinson has maintained that certain engagements involved intelligence compilation rather than conventional forensic accounting work intended to be presented and defended through oral testimony as a basis for prosecution and freezing orders.

If reports were relied upon in proceedings affecting defendants or their assets, the relevant courts must be able to assess their evidential value in context.

That assessment includes considering whether conclusions can be independently verified, whether the methodology is adequately explained and whether limitations in the source material affect the weight that should be attached to the findings.

A matter of public confidence

The central issue is whether the work can withstand appropriate examination and whether the expert himself was involved in illegal activity.

An expert’s previous acceptance by investigators, or a report’s presence in a judicial file, does not settle those questions.

The reported court direction to prosecute Milenovic has brought professional authorisation into focus.

The questions surrounding Harbinson concern a separate set of circumstances, but they illustrate why the legal character of his testimony matters.

The public interest requires consistency. Experts should not be shielded from scrutiny because their work has previously been used in important cases.

For defendants, the ability to challenge material evidence is fundamental. Prosecutors depend on the reliability of the evidence they present, while courts must distinguish established facts from disputed conclusions. The justice system must also uncover misconduct and criminal actions by experts.

In the coming days, a series of articles will examine these questions separately, including the Milenovic proceedings, Harbinson’s professional status, the dissolved company, potential conflicts of interest, taxation and money laundering. They will also examine sinister details that have not yet been made public.