Print Article

Maltese courts refuse to uphold FIAU “ILLEGAL AML FINES” and refuse EU referral.


The Maltese Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit [FIAUs] has been dealt dozens of court judgements by the superior courts which have declared:-

  • Its fines and sanctions policy to be “COMPLETELY ILLEGAL”
  • Because supervised entities have no fair right of hearing.

Mr Justice Toni Abela has said in his judgments:-

  • The FIAU’s onerous fines were punitive and “quasi-criminal”, and therefore should be issued by a court or juridical body that gives such companies the basic right of being tried by an independent and autonomous tribunal.
  • The FIAU’s punishments were “completely illegal because they are not sanctioned by any law and the law reigns over everyone.”
  • The FIAU’s fines were so punitive that they force the appellant companies to wind up operations.
  • Punitive fines could only be issued by bodies that offered the necessary legal protections and that those who did not, would not find the court as their defence,

Mr Justice Toni Abela

  • Described the FIAU’s sanctions policy, through which the fines are calculated, as “convoluted, opaque and byzantine”.

The FIAU’s policy, as stated its fines.

  • “Should be punitive and act as a deterrent to non-compliance” where subject-persons would consider these penalties as a ‘mere cost of doing business’ but significant enough to impact on the annual income.”


Following a decision in which the courts ruled its 2021 €435,000 fine for Phoenix Payments was unconstitutional.

  • The FIAU is appealing a judge’s ruling that.
    • Its administrative penalties are unconstitutional and
    • In breach of the rights of subject persons to be tried by an independent court.
  • The FIU requested to ask the European Court of Justice for
    • Guidance on the interpretation of EU law inside the Maltese courts and
    • Whether EU law gives it power to impose multi-million fines on money laundering non-compliance.


  • The landmark judgment was handed down in a case brought by payment processing company Phoenix Payments against the FIAU’s power to act as
    • Investigator,
    • Prosecutor and
    • Judge
  • The Court ruled that the FIAU
    • Did not classify as a court as prescribed by law, and
    • That its power to impose administrative penalties on the basis of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, was unconstitutional and therefore in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.
  • According to this law, the FIAU may impose administrative penalties not exceeding €5 million.


The FIAU request was turned down by the Constitutional Court:

  • “By law the Maltese State opted for administrative sanctions to be imposed by the FIAU.
  • It is the sanctions being imposed by the FIAU that are giving rise to various cases in which the persons subject are complaining that a breach of Art. 39 of the Constitution has occurred.”

The Constitutional Court, presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, said:-

  • “The issue in this case is the applicability and interpretation of Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta, given the choice made by the Maltese State,”
  • Article 39 provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence must be given a fair trial by an ‘independent and impartial tribunal established by law’.

The FIAU, as a government agency,

  • Insists it is empowered to supervise compliance by persons subject to anti-money laundering laws, with the power to impose administrative penalties on subject persons.
  • It insisted with the Constitutional Court that it is empowered by a European Union Directive of 2015, which states that member states can lay down such rules as required for their competent authorities to impose sanctions.
  • The FIAU insisted the Directive allows it to exercise its powers to sanction those in breach of money-laundering rules.

The FIAU wanted the ECJ to clarify whether Directive 2015/849 allowed it to impose administrative measures and sanctions

  • “Which may be classified as criminal although they are not a result of criminal law as normally understood” and
  • Whether Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta might “undermine the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law”.



The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more


View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more


Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email