Local audit and law firms licensed as agents in the passport buying scheme have raised concerns after the government published a censored copy of two contracts signed with Henley and Partners.
“Apart from large chunks of the contracts being shaded out by the government, we are concerned that local agents are still not on the same footing as Henley and Partners – as was promised by the Prime Minister,” a lawyer told this newspaper.
When the government first unveiled the scheme shortly after being elected, it had signed an agreement with Henley and Partners giving the international firm exclusive rights to administer and market what the government has called the Individual Investor Programme.
It would be more prudent to amend the legal notice to reflect the true state of play
However, following uproar from local firms also interested in selling the scheme, the government had backtracked and signed a second contract with Henley which removed the exclusivity clause, meaning local firms could also act as agents.
Although the two contracts have now been published by the government, following the start of a discussion in Parliament on their contents, the shaded parts of the contracts have raised questions as to whether Henley is still being paid the commission on the basis of exclusivity.
According to the first contract, Henley was to be paid commission of €26,000 for each passport issued, apart from its normal professional fees.
The amended contract does not include information on commission as the relevant sections was censored by the government, which cited commercial confidentiality.
Last week, the independent regulator of the programme, Godwin Grima, also raised questions.
He said although the law stated that the operation of the programme should be carried out by Henley, the impression given by Identity Malta during meetings held with the regulator was that the government had taken more of a lead in the implementation of the programme.
“The regulator feels that Identity Malta’s stance will lend more credibility to the process but still it would be more prudent to amend the legal notice to reflect the true state of play,” Dr Grima said.