The Greek husband of the Russian whistleblower at the centre of the Egrant scandal today told a court that his wife had never been paid her dues by her former employer Pilatus Bank.

Pilatus Bank's legal representative Claudanne Sant Fournier stands accused of having dismissed the woman without paying her wages owed to her for the three months preceding her dismissal in March 2016.

Taking the witness stand, the woman's husband presented copies of original documents which attested that the couple had married 11 years ago in Greece and that he a Greek national. He recalled how, before their relocation to Malta in December 2015, they had spent two years in Ireland where his wife had a residence permit and a regular job.

READ: Whistleblower testifies about unpaid wages

He explained that, while interviewing for a job at Pilatus Bank, he had been informed that the bank needed new staff for both front and back office duties. He encouraged his wife to apply for a job. Although she eventually worked at the bank for three months, she allegedly received no payment.

"I'm working in Malta and I am the one supporting the family, " the man said. He said that in separate criminal proceedings instituted by Pilatus Bank against his wife, his wife had declared under oath that she had been forced to change lawyers because she could not afford to pay her legal fees. 

READ: Bank, whistleblower disagree on CCTV footage

The court, presided by magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, heard how the couple had visited Identity Malta offices in Valletta several times between December 2015 and January 2016 to submit residence permit applications for himself, his wife and his two children and other documents related to the man's self-employed status application. His wife's application process was stalled pending acceptance of his application, which was granted in April 2016.

This version of events was confirmed under oath by Identity Malta representative Ryan Spagnol, who said that in the case of non-EU nationals married to EU nationals, residence permit applications were "a mere formality."

According to a 2004 EU Directive, such persons only need to prove that they are married to an EU national to receive a residence card. Moreover, the Directive makes it clear that even before the card is issued, the applicant cannot be preculded from seeking employment. In this case, the application had been finally submitted in April 2016 and the lady had collected her residence card a while later in June.

Dr Stephen Farrugia Sacco, appointed as a court expert to analyse CCTV footage and mobile phone data, explained that the video consisted of a mosaic of CCTV footage retrieved from the Bank's security cameras. Lasting for approximately one hour, the video presented a collage of camera footage, shown one after the other rather than conjointly. Data from a mobile phone which belonged to the Bank and which had been used by the woman, had also been examined and a report in PDF format was presented in court. Several stills from the relative footage were to be extracted at a later date upon specific requests by the court and both parties.

Marcel Bonnici from Jobs Plus, summoned by the prosecution, testified that there was no need for a work permit in this case since the lady was married to an EU national and acquired freedom of movement by marriage. The court was told that according to the woman's job history, Pilatus Bank had never submitted an engagement form with the department. The onus of such a measure lies squarely upon the employer and not the employee, the witness declared.

Lawyer Stefano Filletti was counsel to the Bank. Lawyer Daniel Buttigieg appeared parte civile for the former employee. Lawyer Valentina Lattughi appeared for the DIER.

See also: Pilatus Bank whistleblower must have left Malta for good, court hears