Carnival, the feast that celebrates an upside-down world, came early for Konrad Mizzi this year. He went to face the European Parliament’s Pana committee dressed up as the man more sinned against than sinning. A victim of fake news.

The Pana committee was, obviously, interested in what he had to say about his Panama company and the rest that the Panama Papers revealed about the multiple attempts by his financial advisers, Nexia BT, to open bank accounts in his name. But while the world was scoffing loudly at what he denied, it missed what he admitted.

The committee asked about the business plans for his Panama company, mentioned in e-mails sent by Karl Cini, of Nexia BT, to extract profits from waste recycling in China, India and elsewhere. Mizzi said those e-mails were the result of a confusion by Nexia BT, which attributed to him things that properly had to do with Keith Schembri, chief of staff to Joseph Muscat.

That’s a denial of sorts. But it’s also an admission. A very interesting one.

Last April, Mizzi was saying something different. Yes, he denied that he had any business plans. But he said nothing about being confused with Schembri. What he said was that the e-mail communications “falsely attributed” things that concerned other Nexia clients. But no mention of Schembri.

There was good reason. In mid-April, Schembri issued a statement accusing Australia’s top financial journalist, Neil Chenoweth, of misreading the Panama Papers:

“Mr Chenoweth is confusing facts... The documentation released confirms beyond doubt that Mr Chenoweth is erroneously attributing communication between Nexia BT and Mossack Fonseca to Mr Schembri.” And he went on to say that Chenoweth “seems to believe that Nexia BT only have two clients”.

It’s possible that, at the time, Schembri did not know that the e-mails carried the company codes linked to himself and Mizzi. But, in any case, the fact is that Schembri was denying Chenoweth’s assertions as well. His company and trust were “estate planning generally; preservation of family assets; family succession planning”.

Chenoweth’s report, Schembri alleged, was rife with inaccuracies, confusion and mistakes. It was entirely speculative and influenced by people who wanted to harm Schembri and the Labour government.

Last April, therefore, the official line was that the confusion arose in the reporting journalists’ minds. Mizzi went along with this.

This month, however, Mizzi says that the confusion was Nexia BT’s. That’s an important shift of blame. The fault now originates with the advisers, not the journalists. (But, somehow, the Maltese and international media are still to blame for fake news and character assassination.)

Konrad Mizzi says that the confusion was Nexia BT’s. That’s an important shift of blame. The fault now originates with the advisers, not the journalists

Mizzi didn’t explain what made him change his mind. Nexia BT wouldn’t comment about whether his accusation is true. Which is strangely passive for a firm whose professional reputation is at stake. Until, that is, you realise how kind Mizzi is being to Nexia BT.

Make no mistake. On Mizzi’s account, he has been a serial victim. If the media have been unkind, Nexia BT has arguably been even worse.

First, they advised him to open a Panama company to address his modest ambition of taking care of his family assets. Not only did this advice cost him the deputy leadership of the Labour Party, it disgraced him in Malta and Europe. Plus, other financial experts in Malta have described it as so inappropriate, given Mizzi’s self-declared assets, that the advice virtually constituted malpractice.

But Nexia BT were only getting started. Next, they repeatedly attempted to open a bank account for Mizzi without (he says) his authorisation.

Finally, they confused Mizzi’s aims with Schembri’s business plans. Do not think this was a momentary lapse, a slip in one careless e-mail. It’s a complex hallucination that goes on for months.

In his e-mails, Cini repeatedly referred to two companies, practically every time identifying the codes for those owned by Mizzi and Schembri. When more personal background on Mizzi was required, he excused himself for the delay in sending the relevant information because, he wrote, of difficulties in getting a meeting with his client.

He eventually sent a detailed description of Mizzi’s background and business experience. Did he get that directly from Mizzi – without explaining why it was needed and Mizzi not wondering why a family trust would need background on his business experience? Or did he pull Mizzi’s CV off the internet and send it forward without Mizzi’s authorisation?

In one scenario, Cini is a really loose cannon. In the other, there seems to be a striking communication problem with his client. It would seem to be the latter when you consider the number of times that Cini, in his e-mails, refers to meeting with his two clients, who then had questions to ask about bank accounts. For example:

“They are asking re the $1m[illion] deposit. Is this for the initial deposit only? Is there a minimum they need to keep as running/average balance?”

That’s from an e-mail dated November 2015, where Cini says he spoke to his clients who wanted to check about opening accounts with BSI in Panama.

Note the repeated use of “they”. It’s a word that turns up in other e-mails, with subject headings carrying the company codes for Schembri and Mizzi.

Now, either Cini was hallucinating about meeting Mizzi on this matter or it must have been a very strange meeting. Think of it: Cini talking about opening bank accounts; Mizzi not noticing and talking about other things; Cini nonetheless understanding that Mizzi was nodding assent to opening a bank account and also, somehow, inquiring about a deposit of a million dollars.

You’d think Mizzi would be really angry about this persistent confusion of his innocent interests with Schembri’s business interests. After all, the repeated meetings with Cini should have clarified matters. And if Mizzi can splutter with outrage when faced by journalists’ confusions, how must he feel about his adviser’s extremely embarrassing, repeated confusion and inventions?

And, yet, asked by the Pana committee whether Nexia BT had invented things about him, Mizzi sedately replied they should ask the firm. And when the firm was asked about Mizzi’s allegations – allegations that are hostile because harmful to their reputation – they had no comment.

It’s either a funny old world or we’re being taken for fools.

ranierfsadni@europe.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.