Finance Minister Edward Scicluna’s ‘Talking Point’ titled ‘Keeping up appearances’ (July 18) sets out to minimise the gravity of having a State institution – the Financial Analysis Intelligence Unit, also set up to fight money laundering – caught breaching EU anti-money laundering directives.

This breach by the FIAU occurred in respect of Pilatus Bank, now notoriously tainted as a rogue bank that counted and counts among its clients high officials of the governments of Malta and Azerbaijan linked with allegations of corruption.

The minister does not seem to accept that the European Banking Authority is correct and ethical to admonish the FIAU for failing in its anti-money laundering duties. He trivialises the serious shortcomings of the FIAU.

He totally avoids considering whether the shortcomings occurred because of inadvertent FIAU incompetence or perhaps because external interference was applied. On the other hand, he displays absolutely no doubts or hesitation to declare that the EBA intervened following undue pressure by the European Commission.

He alleges that the Commission behaved the way it did after seemingly extremely powerful MEPs exerted huge influence.

The minister further proceeds to plead that tiny Malta’s failure pales into insignificance when compared to what he alleges to be major habitual money laundering monitoring transgressions committed by unspecified big EU members.

In other words, tiny, weak Malta is being bullied and unfairly singled out for exemplary punishment.

Coming from the Minister of Finance of an EU member state, such statements sound and appear quite puerile and shocking. This kind of reaction on the part of the minister may go down well with a section of the local electorate.

That is, the proverbial line of defence whereby a grave misdemeanour is supposedly written off by the mention of another misdemeanour committed by whoever else. Others transgressed with impunity, so I have a right to transgress too, with impunity.

Malta must pursue, and be seen to pursue, an anti-money laundering commitment, irrespective of alleged failures by other European Union states

However, this issue does not only have to do with local politics; this has to do with high-level EU affairs of state.

This has to do with how a Maltese minister of finance needs to interact, with conviction and dignity, with ministers of other EU member states, with important officials of European Union institutions and European commissioners.

Money laundering, sometimes linked to terrorism financing, is a very serious offence and the European Commission and EU institutions are correct to fight back in no uncertain way.

Money laundering is a serious criminal misdemeanour that corrupts the economic and commercial set-ups of a country.

The chain of defence of the European Union against this money laundering cancer is as strong as its weakest link.

Malta should not and must not allow itself to be considered to be a weak link. Malta must pursue, and be seen to pursue, an anti-money laundering commitment, irrespective of alleged failures by other European Union states.

One of the major benefits to accrue to Malta through EU membership is this guarantee to be pulled up and called to order whenever competent and decent governance starts to falter and deteriorate.

It is now very evident that EU membership provides Maltese citizens with assurances, guarantees and remedies against particular misbehaviour by its rulers.

Malta is experiencing unprecedented levels of corruption; the variations in the types of corrupt practices are infinite.

Particular corrupt practices, tampering with tendering processes be-ing a case in point, directly infringe European Union regulations and it is comforting to have EU remedies to fall back on.

As the Labour Party was vehemently against joining the European Union, could this government, finding its freedom to abuse somewhat curtailed, be tempted to consider a ‘Maltexit’?

Highly unlikely since some people might have to consider running away in haste once they start getting chased by purchasers of €650,000 passports, passports not intended for the sole privilege of accessing the territory of Malta, Gozo, Comino and Filfla.

Arthur Muscat writes in his personal capacity.