Safiya Ferkash says Malta lacks jurisdiction over the funds deposited by her late son Mutassim Gaddafi.
The widow of former Libyan chief Muammar Gaddafi has appealed a call by a Malta court docket ordering the Financial institution of Valletta to return to Libya some 95 million euros ($100m) deposited by Gaddafi’s late son Mutassim, court docket officers stated.
Safiya Ferkash and her attorneys argue of their attraction that the courts lacked jurisdiction and couldn’t determine the case over the funds.
The sentence was delivered on the finish of June after a authorized battle that began in 2012, a yr after Gaddafi was overthrown and killed.
Mutassim, who was additionally killed, was present in possession of a number of Financial institution of Valletta (BOV) bank cards because the proprietor of a Maltese-registered firm. The Libyan state had accused BOV of failing to hold out correct due diligence checks that ought to have prevented Gaddafi opening an account within the first place.
The attraction was filed on behalf of the Gaddafi heirs by Maltese lawyer Louis Cassar Pullicino. No date for a listening to has been set but.
Based on the Occasions of Malta, the court docket had final month ordered that the funds be launched to the Libyan state.
The funds, held below a Maltese firm referred to as Capital Assets Restricted, was at all times thought-about by the Libyan authorities as illicit positive aspects and never non-public funds.
The unique court docket had upheld arguments by Libya’s lawyer basic that in line with Libyan regulation, as a military officer, Mutassim had been precluded from drawing advantages from any enterprise pursuits.
Furthermore, he had didn’t submit a full declaration of belongings as required by regulation.
In her attraction, Safiya Ferkash Mohammed argued that the Libyan legal guidelines invoked within the case have been legal ones however that no legal case was ever initiated in opposition to Mutassim Gaddafi or his heirs.
Moreover, the Maltese courts have been requested to grant Libya a treatment pursuant to a overseas penal regulation whereas in precept a home court docket can not apply the penal regulation of a overseas state to grant such treatment.