Key Highlights
- Malta court rules crypto trader Luke John Milton’s right to a fair hearing was violated after years-long delays in his €700,000 crypto fraud trial.
- Investigators struggled for years to unlock Milton’s mobile phone, the key piece of evidence, despite international expert help.
- Court sets six-month deadline for prosecution to present phone data or close evidence; costs to be borne by the State.
Luke John Milton, a Maltese crypto trader accused in a €700,000 (~$810,617) cryptocurrency fraud case, has won a ruling from Malta’s Constitutional Court that prolonged delays in his trial violated his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
The case had effectively stalled for years because investigators could not access Milton’s mobile phone, which they considered a key piece of evidence.
The charges
Milton faces multiple serious charges, including fraud over €5,000 (~$5,790), money laundering, theft of cryptocurrency, handling stolen goods, violently resisting arrest, and possession of items intended for fraud. Authorities say the alleged victim lost approximately €700,000 worth of cryptocurrency as per a report from Malta Today.
In June 2021, Milton was arraigned under arrest and his phone seized. Investigators asked him to provide the password or unlock the device, but he refused.
Attempts to access the phone
The court appointed IT expert Keith Cutajar on June 28, 2021, to extract data from Milton’s phone. He was instructed to take all necessary steps to examine its contents.
Soon, technical difficulties emerged. Cutajar told the court he lacked the equipment to unlock the device and requested help from a foreign company. The court authorized the involvement of a laboratory operated by the United States Homeland Security Investigations.
Even with outside assistance, investigators struggled. Cutajar later explained that unlocking the phone required a two-phase process, and one phase depended on technology that did not yet exist. On being asked how long it might take to develop it, he said: “It could be five years, could be one year, could be ten.”
By June 2023, the phone remained inaccessible, and the court adjourned the case sine die, leaving it effectively suspended indefinitely.
Constitutional challenge
Milton filed a constitutional application on August 11, 2023, claiming the delays violated his right to a fair hearing. He asked the court to set a clear and short deadline for the prosecution to conclude its evidence.
He argued that the prolonged proceedings had disrupted his life: his liberty had been restricted, his assets frozen, and the usual compilation stage, which normally lasts a few months, had stretched to over two years.
State’s response
The State Advocate, the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of Police opposed Milton’s application. They said the case was still ongoing and that the phone contained essential evidence.
Investigators had exhausted all available avenues, including international expertise. They also claimed the delay could have been avoided if Milton had provided the password.
Court’s ruling
The Constitutional Court noted that while Milton had refused to unlock the device, the prosecution remains responsible for collecting evidence. An accused has the right to remain silent, but the State must still progress the case within a reasonable timeframe.
Judges observed that the proceedings had effectively been stalled since August 2021. While new technology might now allow the phone to be unlocked, success was not guaranteed. The court ruled that the delay violated Milton’s right to a fair hearing.
Remedy and deadline
The court ordered that if the phone’s data is not presented within six months of the judgment becoming final, the magistrate must immediately close the prosecution’s evidence. No damages were awarded at this stage, but the respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the constitutional proceedings jointly.
Milton was represented by lawyers Stefano Filletti and Nicole Galea. The judgment was delivered by Judge Ian Spiteri Bailey.
Also Read: Defense Files 8-Page Objection to DOJ in $25M Ethereum Exploit Case
