The alleged mastermind behind a theft of some €10,000 worth of branded sportswear has been cleared by a court because of insufficient evidence linking him to the haul.

Carl Ciantar, 28, from Tarxien, was targeted by the police nine years ago after sources had reported that he had been selling the stolen merchandise from a garage just opposite his parents’ home.

Investigators had searched the suspect’s home and garage and came across items of the allegedly stolen merchandise.

One of the owners of a shop had reported that on the night of January 20, 2009, several pairs of shoes, boots and tracksuits, all bearing the original ‘Puma’ trademark, had been swept off the shelves after thieves had forced their way into the Paola showroom.

The sportswear taken from the well-stocked store was estimated to run into some €10,000.

The prime suspect behind the robbery, the man who had rented the garage where the stolen items were discovered, was arrested and charged for the aggravated theft, voluntary damage to third party property as well as with being a relapser and with having committed the offences during the operative period of a suspended sentence.

However, in the course of criminal proceedings, it transpired that the prosecution had little evidence linking the accused to the theft.

Indeed, a forensic expert reported in court that there was little DNA evidence tying the accused to the scene of the crime, with several genetic profiles emerging from the tested samples. There was an unusually low probability factor of 1/72 that one of those profiles belonged to the accused.

A fingerprint expert had also reported that the evidence linking the accused to the alleged crime had proved inconclusive.

Moreover, the court observed that the police had failed to summon the persons who had allegedly supplied the information that the accused had been selling stolen merchandise from his garage.

Furthermore, in line with established case-law, the statements released by the accused under police interrogation, had to be discarded as evidence against him since the then-suspect had not been assisted by a lawyer, a right subsequently affirmed and implemented by our courts.

In the light of all such considerations, added to the fact that there had been conflicting versions as to whether any stolen merchandise had actually been found inside the accused’s home, magistrate Neville Camilleri, presiding over the case, pronounced an acquittal.

“Although the court might possibly speculate as to the part possibly played by the accused, yet these were all mere conjectures and there was nothing grounded in concrete evidence,” the court observed, whilst concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Marion Camilleri and Yanika Vidal were defence counsel.