A Maltese jeweller cleared of buying precious items which had been stolen in a raid upon a Valletta store in August 2011 had his acquittal confirmed on appeal.

George Tabone, whose name is synonymous with the Gram brand, had been targeted by criminal prosecution after one of the men involved in the Valletta store burglary told investigators how he had sold his share of the booty to the owner of Gram Collections.

Jeweller George Tabone.

That confession sparked investigations against the jeweller who had been interrogated at the police headquarters, denied the allegations and protested his innocence all the way.

Criminal action was subsequently instituted against Mr Tabone for allegedly handling stolen property, as well as for relapsing.

Read: Assets freeze against well-known jeweller to stand

In the course of the proceedings, it emerged that the prosecution had based its case upon a statement by one of the thieves, Glen Debattista, who had that he had sold his share of the jewellery and that of his son, Ryan, to Mr Tabone at his Birkirkara outlet.

Besides gold items, there had also been a solitaire ring having an estimated value of some €30,000, the court had heard.

The confessed thief had described how he used to visit Mr Tabone’s office, accessible via a spiral staircase, detailing how the Digital Video Recorder would be switched off while the deal was struck.

However, the court observed that the police had found no trace whatsoever of the stolen jewelry at the accused’s premises. Nor had they established any link between the confessed thief, branded “a liar” by the defence counsel, and the jeweller.

Following the acquittal by the Magistrates’ Court in 2015, the Attorney General had filed an appeal, arguing that there had been a wrong assessment of evidence by the first court.

However, the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti, observed that the prosecution’s case had been based upon the version supplied by one of the thieves, whose credibility was strongly questioned and which was denied by the jeweller.

The court also noted that Mr Debattista’s testimony had been marked by certain inconsistencies and that neither direct nor circumstantial evidence linked Mr Tabone to the crime.

In the light of such circumstances, the court declared that it was not “morally convinced” that the DVR issue, as well as the description of the jewellery shop supplied by Mr Debattista, could be taken to amount to “unequivocal evidence pointing in one direction”.

The court thus rejected the appeal and confirmed the acquittal. Lawyers Michael and Lucio Sciriha were defence counsel.