The Insignia case and its aftermath

Abstract

In this article, Prof. Tonio Borg discusses the recent Insignia case and its ramifications on the rule of exhaustion of ordinary remedies in constitutional proceedings challenging the validity of a law. Introduction: It all began with the Insignia case. In that case plaintiff company contested the constitutional validity of a law which allowed the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) to impose hefty administrative penalties on legal or physical persons who do not keep their records in order in the context of the prevention of money laundering. The argument put forward by the plaintiff company was that in the light of the Federation of Estate Agents case and the case of Rosette Thake, hefty administrative fines were, in spite of their being called administrative, still criminal in nature and, therefore, subject to the norm contained in Article 39(1) of the Constitution that only a court of law could impose such sanction. FIAU was not a court of law. [Excerpt]