Finance Minister Edward Scicluna warned this evening that rumours and allegations spreading locally and in various EU fora were doing considerable harm to the Maltese financial sector, and were detrimental to the country and its economy as a whole.
Winding up a debate in parliament on the Prevention of Financial Markets Abuse (Amendment) Bill, Prof. Scicluna said he had met MEPs who had been falsely informed that, amongst other things, the government was keeping under wraps a report filed by the FIAU Director-General Manfred Galdes before his resignation, and that Maltese tax authorities were not always co-operating with their German counterparts in the pursuit of tax evasion.
Kristy Debono (PN) had earlier queried reports of an MFSA-Central Bank merger and also criticised the four per cent commission being given to Henley & Partners on the sale of government bonds to investors who apply for Maltese citizenship through the Individual Investor Programme.
She said that since Henley & Partners were not listed with the MFSA, sale of such bonds would amount to sales by an unlicensed stockbroker. Furthermore, a commission of four per cent would be more than 10 times the standard rate of 0.3 per cent established by MFSA regulations.
The Bill, which was also passed through the Committee Stage, proposes amendments intended to increase penalties for insider trading and market manipulation, criminalising these offences and raising fines from a maximum of €150,000 to a maximum of €15,000,000 in some cases.
The amendments would provide a deterrent to abuse by financial traders and stockbrokers, protecting small shareholders in particular from the mismanagement of their funds.
Earlier in the debate,Claudio Grech said that while the Opposition believed in the need for these amendments, and would be voting in favour, it wished to see stronger provisions put in place to protect whistle-blowers and the media from falling victim to the new regulations.
To this, Minister Scicluna replied that these regulations would only apply in cases where the use or dissemination of information was not equitable. The release of confidential information to the public, in the service of the public interest, would not fall under its scope.