The categorical declaration by the Pana Committee chairman that what Konrad Mizzi did when opening a secret Panama company is likely to amount to money laundering is damning.

Over the course of the last year, the Prime Minister and various acolytes of his have bent over backwards to sell the canard that Panamagate is nothing more than an error of judgement committed by his chief of staff, Keith Schembri, and Mizzi.

We were told they committed no illegality, that they were given “politically naive”, “very insensitive” financial advice and that they could have exercised better judgement. Both Joseph Muscat and several of his ministers have insulted our intelligence saying that no illegality has been committed. What hogwash we are expected to gulp hook, line and sinker by the Prime Minister.

Inbuilt in the principle of good governance of a country is the fact that the country’s government and its elected representatives strictly adhere to the laws of the land. The Panama Papers show that the actions by Mizzi and Schembri not only amount to a total disregard of this principle but that their actions amount to criminal activity.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Chapter 373 of the Laws of Malta) exists precisely to prevent and prosecute the concerted behaviour of Schembri and Mizzi as evidenced by the Panama Papers. This legislation, so crucial to fight white collar crime, targets “criminal activity” that is defined as being “any criminal offence”.

Money laundering is defined as being: “(i) The conversion or transfer of property knowing or suspecting that such property is derived directly or indirectly from, or the proceeds of, criminal activity or from an act or acts of participation in criminal activity, for the purpose of or purposes of concealing or disguising the origin of the property or of assisting any person or persons involved or concerned in criminal activity;

How comfortable are you knowing that Auberge de Castille is a money laundering machine?

“(ii) The concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, rights with respect of, in or over, or ownership of property, knowing or suspecting that such property is derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity or from an act or acts of participation in criminal activity;

“(iii) The acquisition, possession or use of property knowing or suspecting that the same was derived or originated directly or indirectly from criminal activity or from an act or acts of participation in criminal activity;

“(iv) Retention without reasonable excuse of property knowing or suspecting that the same was derived or originated directly or indirectly from criminal activity or from an act or acts of participation in criminal activity;

“(v) attempting any of the matters or activities defined in the above foregoing sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv).”

The same law casts a wide net to define what type of “property” can be the subject of a money laundering investigation: “Property and assets of every kind, nature and description, whether movable or immovable, whether corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, legal documents or instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets and, without derogation from the generality of the foregoing, shall include – (a) cash or currency deposits or accounts with any bank, credit or other institution as may be prescribed which carries or has carried on business in Malta; (b) cash or items of value; and (c) land or any interest therein”.

Thus, according to Maltese law, anything that one does to disguise the origin of ill-gotten property, to legitimise or make appear as legitimate property that originates from a criminal activity, is known as money laundering.

An attempt to commit an act of money laundering is also a crime.

Money laundering is a crime punishable with up to 18 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to €2.5 million.

Even assuming that what Mizzi and Schembri want us to believe is true, they would still be guilty of money laundering the minute that their earnings from their secret Panamanian companies would not have been declared with the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

Let us not forget that both of them had already opted not to inform the commissioner about their overseas trust and this in violation of the law.

The same goes for Nexia BT in its capacity as subject persons, guilty of having violated both the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and also the Prevention of Money Laundering and Funding of Terrorism Regulations. It opted not to register their clients’ trusts with the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, to ensure and provide another layer of secrecy even here in Malta. To keep at bay any possible researcher of the truth. To prevent any leaks from the tax authorities about the existence of such trusts. So what is done in Panama stays in Panama.

How comfortable are you knowing that the Auberge de Castille is a money laundering machine?

jason.azzopardi@gov.mt

Jason Azzopardi is shadow justice minister.