The trial court erred in denying defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion against plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim based on criminal charges that the public prosecutor brought against plaintiff.  Though defendant initiated the criminal proceeding with a complaint to the police, the undisputed evidence showed that the police carried out an independent investigation which, though it began with interviews with defendant’s employees, went a good bit further.  When prosecution follows such an independent investigation, the investigation rather than the initial complaint is the cause of the prosecution and so is a complete defense to a malicious prosecution claim against the complaining witness.