Exonerated manager 'should have been more cautious'

A Central Bank manager, who was absolved of passing confidential information to the Labour Party, should have consulted the bank before putting his foot in a matter of potential controversy, according to a disciplinary board.

The Governor of the Central Bank, Michael Bonello, made this argument in a counter-protest in which he rebutted claims by manager Sandro Demarco who complained that the report exonerating him was never published.

Last year, in November, Mr Demarco was accused by Communications Minister Austin Gatt of passing on to the PL confidential information belonging to the bank. The information which he purportedly leaked found its way into a report published by the PL in November 2008 under the title Stima ta' Surcharge Mingħajr Sussidji (An estimated surcharge without subsidies).

The Minister had presented a print-out of the properties page of an electronic document distributed by the PL which identified Mr Demarco as the originator of the document.

The Central Bank ordered Mr Gatt's allegations to be investigated in two separate proceedings.

The first concerned the violation of the bank's Anti Fraud Policy. On December 15, 2008, the Audit Committee concluded that Mr Demarco had not violated this policy as no confidential information was leaked in the review.

In fact, Mr Demarco had reviewed Labour's document but not added any confidential information from the bank.

The second proceedings involved the setting up of a Disciplinary Board to examine whether Mr Demarco had been bound to obtain the bank's prior authorisation before carrying out the review of the PL's report.

In a judicial protest, Mr Demarco insisted he had been cleared in both reports and complained that the Governor failed to publish the results of the reports that exonerated him from the allegations.

"Evidently he did not want to embarrass Minister Gatt because the accusations he made turned out to be completely unfounded," Mr Demarco said in the protest.

He held Mr Bonello liable in damages and asked for a copy of the Audit Committee report so he could defend his reputation.

However, in the counter protest, Mr Bonello pointed out that in September, the disciplinary board had not completely exonerated Mr Demarco. It concluded that, although Mr Demarco was not guilty of this charge, he ought to have exercised more caution and prudence before accepting to review a report on a matter which had all the ingredients for the build-up of a public controversy.

The board ordered Mr Demarco to write to the bank within two weeks of its decision.

Mr Demarco was to assure the bank of his continued loyalty, dedication and commitment. The letter should also have declared that there would be no repetition of the circumstances that led to the taking of disciplinary proceedings against him.

But Mr Bonello told the court that, to date, the bank had not received this letter.

Mr Bonello also pointed out that, in February, the bank informed Mr Demarco that the two reports would be published together once the second one was completed.

In a letter dated September 28, Mr Demarco asked the bank to only publish the Audit Committee report but not the board's conclusions. He also asked the bank to no longer keep his personal file and consider the matter closed.

The bank informed him that the two reports would be published and his file would have to remain in the bank's system

In conclusion, Mr Bonello called upon Mr Demarco to stop making any claims against the bank.

Lawyer Pawlu Lia filed the protest while lawyer Vincent Falzon signed the counter-protest.