Tag: Konrad Mizzi

Categories
Constitutional Development Corruption Panamagate

We ain’t seen nothing yet

One by one they walked out of Mile End HQ with that pathetic smile that convinces only themselves and the diehard faithfuls that all is well in the State of Labour. No comments to the assembled press though, at least not until PM Abela walked out of the glass door of the infamous Dar it-Trasparenza. Abela was, rightly, the one to face the music and give some kind of rendition of what had gone in the meeting.

Good news first. Mizzi has been voted out of the Labour Party. The man who has been unfit for purpose since at least the Panama Papers revelations is finally party-less and has been left to fend for his sorry self (while still in quarantine).

In other news, Abela is still playing to the circus that voted his party back into power notwithstanding the fact that many of the what he calls ‘allegations’ were known to them in 2017. The accolytes gathered around him for moral support included such luminaries as Edward Zammit Lewis and Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi and they were there to applaud and yell their support to make whatever happened that moment look and sound like a resounding victory.

Pressed and cornered to take a position about Joseph Muscat, Abela writhed and squirmed trying hard to build a case for not having ditched il-Kink along with the rest of the ballast. The biggest problem that Abela had was the elephant in the room : he could not say that Muscat deserved being ditched by Labour for the enormous responsibility that he has carried at the very least for standing by the Mizzi and Schembri Roadshow from the start.

He tried. He did say that had he been in Muscat’s place in 2016 he would have ditched Mizzi immediately. But Muscat’s responsibility goes further than that. It is a continuing responsibility borne by the fact that he stood square behind Mizzi and Schembri until yesterday. And here comes the elephant… that responsibility is carried by each and every member of the Labour governments who have stood square behind Muscat’s line of defences.

These are the Labour government and members who accused investigators and civil society of being traitors of the nation. They are the same members who backed Mizzi’s corrupt deals to a hilt. They are still unable to bring themselves to commit on a revision of every single contract and deal in which Mizzi was involved.

Abela today tried to get cheers for a non-achievement. His distraction biscuit today was that we would not be going to the polls any time soon (cue cheers and cries from the rent-a-crowd). The cries came from people who are just as tainted and just as mixed-up in this mess. As long as the collective responsibility for our nation’s current predicament is not borne then we continue living a lie.

As a friend of mine rightly noted earlier tonight: “Daphne Caruana Galizia would have still been alive today, had it not taken you ages to decide. Had our institutions been truly independent and allowed to function.”

That, Robert, is the reason we cannot have accolades and triumphalisms. You might convince yourself and your roadies that tonight’s vote is some big cut off moment. As far as we are concerned, we literally ain’t seen nothing yet.

photo: M. Mirabelli

Categories
Mediawatch

Judge Grixti’s Catch-22

“They don’t have to show us Catch-22,” the old woman answered. “The law says they don’t have to.”
“What law says they don’t have to?”
“Catch-22.”


Catch-22, Joseph Heller

Konrad Mizzi, the government and anybody with an interest in transforming the Mizzi/Schembri Panama Papers issue into yet another story of apparent ‘allegations’ are crying victory all over the social media following the Appeals Court decision to overturn a lower court’s decision to allow an in genere inquiry (inquest-inkjesta) to go ahead into allegations of money laundering by the government’s star-minister.

Ignorance of the law has always been abused of and politicians will continue to do so, as long as citizens are happy to be taken for a ride. The Court decision today is all about not allowing an inquiry to go ahead. It does not exculpate Mizzi – far from it. The whole judgment reads as a technical examination on whether or not the grounds exist for an in genere inquiry to go ahead. In layman’s terms the Judge was examining whether the report that was made was substantial enough to justify starting an examination of facts in order to preserve such facts for what could eventually be a prosecution.

The worry in today’s Malta is that the systemic breakdown that includes the breakdown of the rule of law has affected every branch of our democracy’s institutions. Our Justice Minister constantly takes pride in reminding everyone who complains that, among others, we have a faultless judicial appointments system. And yet.

Yet the Venice commission report clearly pointed out faults in this appointments system. The judiciary remain firmly within the hold and control of the executive – particularly with regards to their hopes for their future career development. It would not take much to begin to wonder whether judgments are being written in reverse – a decision is taken and then an excuse for a justification for a decision that grasps at straws to sound “law-worthy’ is conjured up as a supposedly good reason to reach that decision that has already been decided.

Judge Grixti’s ruling is faulty. There is no harm in saying that because, as I know very well myself, drafters of judgments are far from being infallible. It is not enough to claim that it is faulty though – an explanation must be given. @bugdavem on twitter gave the perfect explanation in a thread that I am reproducing below.

I will only add that Grixti seems to have come up with a Catch-22 situation for anyone wanting to report a crime with the hope to get an inquiry in genere going.

It goes something like this: You need an in genere inquiry to investigate, find and confirm the existence of proof that may be used for a future prosecution of a crime. In order to get an in genere inquiry going you need to provide the type of proof that would normally be found and obtained by the in genere inquiry itself. See? Grixti’s very own Catch-22.

Bugdavem on twitter

The catch with Judge Giovanni Grixti’s ruling is (and this is where you realise that the Maltese courts have – intentionally or otherwise – no understanding of money laundering), that attempted money laundering is in itself a crime punishable by 3+ years imprisonment.

What does that mean or entail? Money laundering laws set a low threshold for evidence given that, in practice, the machinations that might be employed by launderers or attempted launders could frustrate justice.

In a case of actual money laundering, the threshold needed for the prosecution is prima facie – at face value – that there is no logical or lawful explanation for the monies to be laundered. The Maltese courts have held jusrt this in the past and it is also clearly stated in the law.

Once that is proven then it is up to the defendent to prove to the satisfaction of the court that any monies and arrangements were in fact lawful and legitimate. This is the rule for actual money laundering as well as the threshold and burdens of proof required.

For attempted money laundering, the threshold is even lower since given that this is an “attempt” one would need to show prima facie the intention and preliminary steps taken to implement that intention.

In Judge Giovanni Grixti’s decision to reject even the opening of an inquest to saveguard evidence (ie, not even for a prosecution so the threshold is actuallylower) he ruled that he expected a level of evidence that is higher than the prosecution in an actual case of laundering .

This is the active part where he stated that is was incumbent on the complainant, here Simon Busuttil, to prove how the series of events and machinations were illegal (as opposed to the threshold of prima facie no logical or lawful explanation).

Anyone with half a brain can see how bizarre this is. The threshold to request a magistrate to safeguard evidence in attempted laundering which the Police won’t investigate is (by virtue of this judgment – J’accuse) actually (set) higher than that required by the Police to secure a conviction for actual money laundering.

Categories
Watermarks

Watermarks: The Definition of Forgery

forgery_akkuza

We have moved from “misrepresentation” to “outright lie”. Minister Konrad Mizzi has become a specialist in libel law. It is a standard in the Maltese game of politics and carries with it the public assumption that “since X has resorted to the courts then X must be right”. It is not how it should be, it is not what the institutes of libel and slander were set up to protect but hey, no Maltese politician in recent history has shied away from abusing of the law in this manner so why should Mr. Konrad?

“Mr. Konrad”, now there is a curious way of referring to a Minister – or anyone for that matter unless you are a slave on a cotton plantation in pre-emancipation US. Yet that is how Karl Cini of Nexia BT refers to the Unportfoglioed Minister in his correspondence to Mossack Fonseca. Cini is speaking to Mossack Fonseca about Mizzi’s PEP status and is also endeavouring to explain the “How many?” and the “Wherefrom? of the funds that will be eventually subject to movements to companies that are set up by Mossack Fonseca.

It is here that Mr. Konrad’s speech of “outright lies” finds a huge banana skin on which to slip and fall. Without playing the special investigator one can see why Konrad Mizzi finds himself in an immense schizophrenic conundrum. Why? Well over the same period of time there had to be two Konrad Mizzi’s:

The first Konrad Mizzi is the one who delegates Cini to contact Mossack Fonseca and set up a structure that requires a considerable amount of funds in order to justify its continued existence. That Konrad Mizzi has an interest to explain that he has quite a considerable amount of personal funds and also has an interest to downplay his role as a PEP. That is why Karl Cini stresses that “our legislation openly allows PEPs to hold shareholdings in other businesses”. So whether he is lying or saying the truth to Mossack Fonseca, Mizzi (through his agents at Nexia) would like the truth to seem that he is loaded with money coming from ventures that are legal notwithstanding his status as a PEP.

The second Konrad Mizzi is the one who was made Minister by Joseph Muscat. That Konrad Mizzi was at first supposed to be a wunderkind who earned loads-a-money while abroad (fuelled by the myth that “studja barra u hadem barra ergo qed jimpala l-liri“) and owned property/properties abroad and has an international family. That was the early story to explain why he needed an international structure involving a tax haven even though his overall worth amounted to a pittance (by multimillionaire tax haven standards). The second Mizzi wanted us to believe that the whole set up cost a couple of tens of euros (was it 90?) and that it was all about family planning.

You can begin to see the dilemma facing Konrad Mizzi. The documentation that is trickling out of the ICIJ Panamaleaks is slowly but surely pointing towards the Konrad Mizzi that one would expect to exist – one who either has or claims to have the kind of funds that justify such operations. The second Mizzi – Minister Mizzi – can give us as facts his Ministerial declarations of worth that obviously clash with declarations done in his own name by the first Konrad Mizzi.

So you see. Speaking about “outright lies” is dangerous in these circumstances. In the not so halcyon days of studying criminal law I still remember now Chief Justice Camilleri lecturing us about fraud and forgery. A forged document is one that “tells a lie about itself”, he would tell us. I wonder what kind of fraud or forgery would be one that yells that it’s an “outright lie”.

Watermarks

Categories
Zolabytes

Panamagate: Labour’s Fell Swoop

fell swoop _ akkuza

Occam’s Laser is a long-time J’Accuse reader who works in the financial services sector. In this article Occam argues that Labour is willfully muddying the waters over Panamagate, exploiting the concerns of conscientious liberals to further its own agenda.

The Labour Party is desperate. For three months it has tried to brazen out Panamagate, but despite its survival of various protests, no confidence motions and other crises, the issue simply won’t go away. Now it is hoping that by tarring the whole Maltese professional class with the same brush, it will cause enough of a distraction for people to start talking about something, anything, but Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri’s egregious misdemeanors.

This is clear from the recent PL attacks on Tonio Fenech and the private sector companies he works for, the attacks on the law firm EMD and its consultant Richard Cachia Caruana, and its general bewildering aggression towards any PN leaning individual somehow involved in financial services. What PL is trying to do is obvious; they want to conflate public concern about the disparate issues of global tax avoidance and its own internal governance disasters in order to dissipate public outrage. This is yet another of the PL’s dirty tricks, and the public shouldn’t allow the PL to wave this red herring in its face with impunity.

To start off with, Malta’s strategic decision to become a financial services centre is one which enjoyed (and below the surface, still enjoys) broad cross-party consensus. So PL is being maliciously disingenuous when it feigns getting its knickers in a twist over this week’s various pseudo-revelations. Secondly, while there is no denying the inherent link between a world order that allows international corporate secrecy, and the exploitation of that secrecy by persons such as Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri, the two problems require radically different solutions.

Regarding the problem of international tax avoidance, this is one which requires, at the international level, a global co-operation and a deep philosophical rethinking of the way the world works; and at the local level, a careful repositioning of Malta as a jurisdiction which adds value beyond its low tax base (this is already the case to some extent, but a truly well intentioned government could do much more to improve things). This is going to be a big, slow job.

The Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri situation, on the other hand, is a pressing governance catastrophe that requires urgent and immediate action. Every day they hold on to their position, they cause irreparable harm to our reputation, and indeed deprive us of the valuable time that we need to reposition and further diversify our economy.

Perhaps the most galling thing about this PL manouvre is the way it exploits the feelings and concerns of the country’s most conscientious individuals, those who genuinely worry about things like global inequality and corporate ethics, turning these noble concerns into tools to further its own ends. Worryingly, we’ve already seen PL try to exploit the concerns of the conscientious before, as with that other red herring about Joseph Muscat supporting gay marriage a few weeks ago. This is shockingly unscrupulous behaviour; the Maltese public deserves better, and PL shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 10 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Categories
Corruption Panamagate

The Price of Time

the price of time _ akkuza

Take a step back. Try to disentangle your brain from the bombshell of Panamagate as it unfolded in Malta. Now take a look at Prime Minister Muscat and his reaction to the whole business over the last seven weeks. In Malta Panamagate came early, probably prematurely. Konrad Mizzi got an early warning of the dangers to come when Caruana Galizia dropped some hints about the information that had come to her possession. “The lamb for Easter would come from New Zealand” was the coded message that set alarm bells ringing in Mizzi’s head. Mizzi had been handed an unexpected advantage – unlike the bigger heads that were to be shaken on the night of Sunday 3rd April he had been handed a lifeline from the quarters he’d least expect. Mizzi and Muscat had been gifted a precious amount of time to work on a defence.

Time. That’s the point here. Timing was crucial and every minute gained to work on the alibi was worth a mountain of gold. Nexia BT, Brian Tonna, Keith Schembri, Kasco, Panama, New Zealand, Adrian Hillman, more Konrad Mizzi. The news trickled out slowly as Caruana Galizi’s blog turned gatekeeper of the leaked information for a period of time – at least until the international bomb would explode thanks to Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ.

This gift was a godsend for Muscat and Mizzi. We were regaled with the “declaration of assets”, the “family planning” and the “full collaboration” stories. Muscat could sit and watch and do what he does best: gauge public opinion. Better still he could shift the goalposts of assessment. It would no longer be about the existence of a structure using jurisdictions that have a notorious and shady reputation. It would become a case of whether money would be found in Panama or New Zealand. Muscat would skilfully manipulate the discussion until the question of Mizzi’s suitability as minister (and Schembri’s as Chief Advisor) would hinge only on whether any corruption could be proven.

It’s not the point really. Put simply both the Minister and the Chief of Staff should have resigned the moment it is was clear that they set up companies in dubious and shady jurisdictions. Whether there is any money to be found (and so much time lapsed till the international machine would actually be set in motion that it is doubtful whether any money would have stayed put so long) is irrelevant. The Panama Papers have shown that. Once the news was out, politicians the world over were slammed with big question marks on their head. The responsible politicians among them have already borne the consequences. And Konrad and Keith?

Konrad and Keith had the benefit of time on their side. The parameters of the discussion had already been shifted with the artful use of propaganda and party machinery. The question had already become whether or not any money would be found. Muscat had managed to shift it all to the far-fetched finding of a smoking gun. One wonders whether Konrad and Keith would have survived the onslaught had their names figured for the first time along with the rest of the ICIJ releases and not a good seven weeks before.

Which is not to say that both Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri are out of trouble. In any decent democracy they would already have been long gone. A decent Prime Minister would have distanced himself from members of his entourage who opt to create such structures in dubious jurisdiction for whatever reason and with whatever intent. He’d do it for his sake and for the sake of his party in government.

Muscat still needs to buy time. The rumblings within his own party must not be comforting. The Süddeutsche Zeitung journalists claim to have “several weeks” of news to release so the Panama Papers are not going to vanish overnight. The more politicians abroad fall thanks to these Papers the more pressure there is on Muscat and Mizzi’s “alibi” regarding the mythological hidden millions that are supposed to be hidden or absent.

Muscat needs to continue to buy time as he has done in previous scandals – notably the Manuel Mallia issue – the bonus time that he was graced with thanks to the early release of the information in Malta has run out. Now that the Panama Papers scandal is an international hot potato Muscat might find that buying time will become more costly. Distraction tactics, mud slinging on the opposition and fact twisting all have an expiration date.

He probably knows that when that time runs out he might find that the writing has been on the wall all along… that Mizzi and Schembri’s position is untenable and delaying the inevitable is disrespectful to the electorate that put Muscat into power, including those who tried their luck for the first time.

Next time they might not be too audacious.

Categories
Values

Untrustworthy. Unfit for purpose.

untrustworthy_akkuza

 

Matthew Vella did a good job grilling Konrad Mizzi about his “financial structure” based in New Zealand and Panama. ‘It’s a free world. Everyone can choose whatever they wish and should seek advice on what is best for them’ – that is the clip that Matthew Vella chose to put in the headline (at least on the online version of the article) and he does have a point highlighting this braggadocio premise that underlies Mizzi’s attitude with regard to the whole business.

It’s a free world indeed and Mizzi’s financial arrangements are under scrutiny because somebody somewhere leaked some crucial information about the financial set up to a journalist who packs a pair of the metaphorical and who went on and published the information. In another case also involving Konrad Mizzi, Daphne Caruana Galizia (the journalist with the metaphorical pair) was under attack in court, being pressured to uncover the sources (informants/spies/leakers) who brought her some alleged information. The importance of standing by Caruana Galizia on that particular point is brought to bear now with much more factual and pertinent information coming into play.

It’s a free world where our Prime Minister and his entourage still find it within their power to sell the lie that there is nothing wrong with a minister of the state having a financial structure that is ordinarily used for money laundering and hiding illicitly obtained funds. They think that they can get away with it because they still operate with the propaganda method that has served labour for long – it’s not what you see that counts, it’s what we tell you that there is. This blog has dubbed it the Magritte method. Also, Joseph Muscat speaks to the ignorant masses when he compares unlike with unlike – deeming the forgotten undeclared Swiss investment by Austin Gatt to be on the same lines as the Panama/New Zealand Structure set up by Konrad Mizzi. And by Keith Schembri.

It’s a free world where the aforementioned ignorant masses still do not understand the immense importance of the revelations regarding financial structures. Those who are not blinded by the ridiculous assertion that once it has been declared it is even better than the Austin Gatt situation will still defend Mizzi’s right to do whatever he wants and aspires to do because – in fact – it IS a free world and he is rich so stuff your jealousy. It will take much much explanation for the man in the street to shed his partisan blindfold and understand that in no way does Konrad Mizzi’s declared income justify the tax structure used by criminal millionaires. Such explanations tend to be boring, tedious and technical – easily shut down by  the Labour style non-sequiturs.

It’s a free world and some journalists and pundits will still insist on giving Konrad Mizzi the benefit of the doubt. In criminal parlance they are not satisfied with finding the blood and the weapon, in the absence of a body there is no murder. Unless they see a corpse then no murder has been committed. These are the ones who believe the spiel by Mizzi and Schembri that some Commissioner of Taxes or self-appointed investigation will actually manage to do what international anti-crime organisations have never done : find out what really lies in the black hole of Panama.

The thing is that we need none of all this. We do not really need proof of any real corrupt transaction taking place. The mere fact that this kind of structure exists for the benefit of a government Minister and for the benefit of the aide to the Prime Minister should be enough to get the whole castle tumbling down. The additional fact that the Prime Minister seems to be intent on protecting this set-up and giving it his blessing should mean that the Prime Minister should be falling down like Humpty Dumpty along with all his horses and all his men.

It is not just about Caesar’s wife either. Let’s get back to the Vella-Mizzi interview. Konrad Mizzi has given us another reason why he should go and why he does not deserve to stay on as a servant of the Republic. Thankfully this has nothing to do with the technicalities of offshore funds and deposits. For the second time within a week Mizzi inadvertently gave us a very good reason why he should be kicked out of government (and parliament I would add) with immediate effect… and the reason was political and emotional:

Rewind back to the first interviews when the whole Panama/New Zealand business came out. One of Mizzi’s first statements/justifications were regarding New Zealand’s status as an open democracy, stable, lacking corruption and ideal for holding a trust. Forget the suspicions of using the trust for corrupt reasons for a second. This was still a Minister of a government that sells itself ot the world as “l-aqwa fl-Ewropa” and pushes the nation as one hell of a financial centre, competing with countries like Luxembourg to attract the kind of financial investments such as trust funds. Here was a Minister of that same government that is supposed to be attracting such investments choosing to set up a trust in New Zealand. Not Malta. New Zealand. Because it’s democratic, stable, and lacks corruption. The question begged to be asked: Why not Malta then?

And now we come to the Vella – Mizzi interview. Hidden among all the faffle about his assets and properties and how he cannot trust Maltese fund managers (!) and how he is dedicated to family planning and looking at the long-term views and bla and bla and bla, Mizzi comes up with a gem of a statement: “I don’t know where I will live in the future.”

Take a deep breath.

This man had just been elected as Deputy Leader of the Malta Labour Party. During his goggle-eyed speech of acceptance he expressed his commitment to working for a better Malta. That is the same Malta that he has contributed to tying down with contractual commitments with Azeris, Saudis and Chinese. Contracts that he would like us to believe would make for a better country – a better future. You’d expect this Minister who is so determined and convinced that he is improving the state of a nation to be committed to this future. So bloody committed to commit himself to living in this paradise in the future.

Alas no. The second reason Konrad Mizzi set up a structure in which his funds will be untraceable overseas is basically that he does not know whether he will still be in Malta in the future. I don’t know about you but this smacks like a betrayal of Malta and the Maltese of the highest order. First Minister Mizzi practically tells us that he would not trust Malta for his “financial investments” – it’s probably not as democratic, stable and non-corrupt as New Zealand. Now he tells us that once he is done with Malta he will probably not live here in the future. I can’t wait for his inevitable third foray in denying his own country. In biblical terms we’d need one hell of a mega-cock to crow three times following his denials… lord knows we’re full of those.

So you see, even before we go in the technical part of Panamagate (that would lead to an even more damning condemnation), we have enough elements to show that at least insofar as Konrad Mizzi is concerned he is not only untrustworthy, he is, as he has been known to repeat many a time…  not fit for purpose.