Advert

Ex-MP gets two years for fraud

A file photo of former MP Sandro Schembri Adami who was yesterday jailed for two years after failing to comply with a court order to repay victims he defrauded.

A file photo of former MP Sandro Schembri Adami who was yesterday jailed for two years after failing to comply with a court order to repay victims he defrauded.

A former MP who was given six suspended sentences was yesterday jailed for two years after failing to pay back victims he had defrauded of about €6,500.

Sandro Schembri Adami, 48, from Valletta, was in July 2010 ordered to pay back nearly €74,000 to 16 clients. After failing to comply, two of them filed a complaint that led to his imprisonment.

Dr Schembri Adami had been given a two-year jail term suspended for four years for keeping for himself money he had collected from clients as duty on property transfers.

The court had opted to suspend the jail term because he had argued that in jail he would not be able to pay the victims back.

Then last year, Dr Schembri Adami asked the Court of Criminal Appeal to revoke the order to pay the €74,000 back, arguing that he could not work as a notary and had no assets.

However, then Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, who was presiding over the appeal, said Dr Schembri Adami should have been put behind bars and not given a suspended sentence, particularly if he was not in a position to pay the money back.

Victor and Carmela Borg subsequently filed an application in court complaining that they had not been paid the €6,500. Dr Schembri Adami had replied that he would be in a position to pay them only if he found a job.

Mr Justice Michael Mallia decreed yesterday that Dr Schembri Adami had failed to abide by the court’s order and so he brought into force the suspended jail term and imprisoned him for two years.

Advert

2 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Nov 25th 2011, 06:28

There is a major difference between a Law Society and the Church. The Law Society does not claim to be a State. It also does not take the high moral ground. Most law societies require solicitors to have insurance. That certainly is the case in Australia. If a solicitor were to run away with his client's moneys, the Law Society would pay up. By the way Law Societies can only judge a person on the basis of what he is at the time of the application to be admitted to the bar. Law Societies are not prophets.

Advert
Advert