by Carlo Bonini
Well I wouldn’t say that we are, I am being investigated. I asked for investigations on allegations that have been made. God forbid that we are in a situation where if someone were aware of this and this does not, in anyway, I don’t want to be seen, I know I am in a quite uncomfortable situation having to criticise someone who has been killed brutally. But I hope we’re not in a situation where in any democracy situations are such where if someone writes something on social media it’s taken as a fact.
But you’re doing exactly that, though, aren’t you? She was killed brutally and you are saying at least some of the time she was running gossip?
Yes she did.
And as far as you’re concerned and your wife is concerned, she had no evidence?
Yes, she didn’t have any evidence because what she said was totally incorrect.
That doesn’t follow, sir. She had evidence. You don’t agree with it, you don’t think it’s right but she did have evidence. She had a whistleblower.
Have you seen the evidence?
… some of this stuff is difficult because it’s been deliberately placed in an opaque and difficult-to-read place. The allegation that she makes …
I think that you were coming from the wrong place. So you’re saying you coming here with questions saying you have seen no evidence … that you’ve just read a blog.
No, I’m aware of what she said but critically what she said in the most compelling blog was that your wife had a company in Panama and a million dollars was paid to that company by the daughter of the president of Azerbaijan. Is that true?
It’s totally false.
She said that and she said she had evidence.
OK, OK, so have you seen that evidence? You haven’t?
I’ve seen her description of it. But there’s a problem here, isn’t there, because in this area of dirty money, slush money, the evidence is hard to come by.
No, I totally disagree because I read exactly what she said. So first of all there isn’t a shred, not only a proof, of truth, of what she said on all this. She based herself on a person calling herself a whistleblower and the account of this whistleblower is dubious to say the least. But apart from that, if there exists a document somewhere, it would come out, for the simple reason she’s saying that money was wired in from somewhere to an account which my wife had somewhere in the world, she said here in Malta, owned this account by a company in Panama. Now I think you will agree with me that in this modern world there is no way in which money can be wired from one place to another without leaving a trace. What the inquiring magistrate has the power to do is to see all the transfers of money made in my name, in the name of any company in this bank in whichever bank in the world and see if there is one shred of truth in that money has been transferred to me, to my wife, or to anyone else. I think you will agree with me that it is impossible. To have money transferred from one account to another without leaving even a single trace. What I am saying is that not only there is no evidence, if even there is a whiff of any evidence to this, I would resign on the spot.
[Sweeney pulled a face.]
I think no politician would put out his neck in such a clear and unequivocal manner if he wasn’t sure about what he’s saying. And yes I’m sorry, the issue with Mrs Caruana Galizia is that she said things that were facts. She wrote stories that were cutting edge. But then these were coupled by things that were false. I don’t know whether she knew that what she was saying against me or about me was false, whether she was party to this invention. Or whether she was fed the story by this whistleblower or someone else and maybe it looked too true, too good not to be true. Let’s put that way because it fitted the narrative that some people wanted to put in. What I am saying is that even she had you know placed her faith in this magistrate. She went to testify in front of this magistrate. As far as I know she gave him all the evidence and so we just, I will just be waiting for the results of this inquiry and will make all the necessary decisions. And I do this in a serene manner because I know that not only, I didn’t do anything which is wrong, but I didn’t do anything, my wife or anything, anyone else that is wrong in all this so I must tell you because maybe you know not you know but maybe you were briefed on the latter part of the story in the beginning. The … the … the … the … rumour was that she and other people were putting forward that I owned this account. And then when it was crystal clear that I didn’t own any account well it’s his wife who owns this account, then it’s his kids. You know I have given, I have asked myself for the judiciary to investigate, not only me, not only my wife but all the members of my family, anyone, who they thought might be holding any monies in my name.
And this investigation continues?
Yes, of course.
At the moment there is no result?
I cannot hold the judiciary to …
You can’t say definitively there is no evidence.
I’m saying what I read in the papers would say that to date no evidence has been produced. In the papers that was reported.
So what about your family’s relationship with the first family of Azerbaijan?
Well I met President Aliyev, I believe twice, in Baku. A number of times when we were at the EU Eastern Partnership summits. Mrs Aliyeva came here once, she met with my wife. That’s it. That’s the relationship.
Nothing more?
Nothing more.
Daphne said there was a lot more.
The prime minister laughs.
A million dollars?
You know I don’t think you can hide $1,000,000. I don’t think you can hide $100. Definitely not in a bank. Definitely not anywhere else.
[This may not be true. If the bank account is owned by a shell company in Panama and the name of the true owner is not directly written on the paperwork you can hide $100. You can hide $1,000,000.]
The flight of the files, the suitcases being removed from Pilatus Bank in the middle of the night from Malta to Azerbaijan? There are pictures of them being removed.
Well, I’ve seen so many pictures. I can surely tell you because I also happen to have a background on banking and due diligence and all the rest that there is no way in which you can wire money, transfer money from one account to another in the world without that leaving one trace. And that’s not governed by one single bank it’s governed by an international system …
Our judiciary is looking at the international databases, they’re getting all the necessary help from all jurisdictions from the international assistance. And I’m sure there is even one cent transfer not one million dollars but one cent of transfer, they will get to the bottom of this. The problem is that all this, it’s not … simply not true and I find myself having to fight for my reputation because of some blogs that have been written and because other things that she’s written were substantiated on various people, then by association, ‘what you wrote about Joseph Muscat must be true’.
I find myself in the unfortunate situation where you know without even one shred of evidence being produced about me I need each and every week to fight this thing that has been said about me. So if there is one person who wants this inquiry to be out as soon as possible, it’s me.
One week after Daphne’s assassination: where were you and what were you doing?
I wouldn’t know. Honestly.
You were in Dubai selling passports.
[Muscat’s laugh did not reach his eyes.]
I was. We don’t sell it. We have, as other European jurisdictions, other European countries, systems by which and programmes, and ours is the most open programme. People can invest in our country, can have residence and even citizenship … We’re the only country in the European Union where we have an agreement with the European Commission on how such a programme works. Other countries have such residence and citizenship programmes but the spotlight is on us for reasons which I don’t know.
Daphne said you were selling passports effectively with this company called Henley & Partners?
It’s not about selling them … It’s about investment … We’re not the only European Union country that does that. We’re not the only country in the world that does that. And Henley & Partners were given the concession after an open call.
Who’s buying these passports?
Well, various people, wealthy people. But wealth doesn’t buy you the right to citizenship.
It helps if you’ve got €650,000 though?
It helps but it doesn’t mean that you can get access to our programme. I had some of the wealthiest people in the world in this office complaining to me that they were not given citizenship even though they were very wealthy. It’s because our sponsor, Reuters said, our due diligence system, our four-tier system is the most advanced in the world.
[Reuters, the world-famous news agency, said no such thing. Muscat was referring to comments by an American lawyer, Peter Vincent, who worked for Thomson Reuters Special Services which is a management consultancy arm, not part of Reuters’ journalism empire. Vincent has left the consultancy and is now a member of the group executive committee at Henley & Partners.]
The law says the minister responsible – and I believe that’s you – can override a problem for example if somebody has got a criminal record or is being under criminal investigation?
This system has never been overridden …
If that’s the case why don’t you list the names?
There was there was an article yesterday saying who these people are.
[The names and true identities of the passport buyers are not clearly given in Malta’s system. Muscat expanded on his defence of opacity.]
No, I think first of all, we don’t distinguish between one citizen and the other. We’re not saying, this is not a list of hundreds of thousands of people as in other countries. It’s a list of hundreds of people that is published regularly and I think simple Google search will give you a simple database I think will give you the backgrounds of people with names. The names are public. So I cannot understand all this hullabaloo because the lists are not listed in the right manner or that sort of thing. The lists are there and I don’t think that any journalist would stop because of some database.
People on the island say that you’re selling passports to dodgy Russians?
Well, people on the island say also that since the inception of our programme we have had the attention of people with networks that would have never given attention to our country and because of that our economy is benefiting because these people are investing even more in our country. You know the problem with some people is that they think they can box more with this sort of dodgy tax haven definition.
So it’s not a dodgy tax haven?
Definitely not. And I’ll tell you why. First of all our economy is hugely diversified. Do you know what our main export is? Semiconductors, microchips. That’s our main export. That doesn’t really suit the narrative of a tax haven.
[Microchips are indeed the biggest single manufacturing export from Malta. But the manufacturing sector is dwarfed by finance, services, and banking – and a part of that could indeed fit inside the narrative of a dodgy tax haven.]
Secondly, there are no tax havens in the European Union for a simple reason tax haven means you have banking secrecy. We don’t. [Tax havens] don’t give information to other jurisdictions. We do. Thirdly, [tax havens] don’t share information. We do share information so all these facts show that we are not a tax haven. If we wanted to be a tax haven we would go out of the European Union but we are very happy with the European Union.
[The subject changed, somewhat.]
Tony Blair supported you in the last general election.
Yes, he did.
Describe your relationship with Tony Blair.
A relationship of the like-minded. I have a lot of time for Mr Blair. I take in many of his policies as a role model for me when it comes to and for us when it comes to the way he introduced minimum wage in the UK and the way he put forward civil liberties and the way in which he showed that a Labour government could grow an economy and put forward socially just policies. I don’t agree with him obviously on the Iraq war. That’s the type of relationship we have.
Does Malta have a problem with money laundering?
Well … we have a financial services industry that is thriving, that is growing. And it’s growing also because we are a serious jurisdiction. Reports have always suggested that we need to do more when it comes to enforcement. That is what we are doing. So I don’t feel comfortable in saying no, we don’t have any problems or yes we have problems. I’d say we have as many problems as any other jurisdiction, be it the city of London, be it Luxembourg be it in the Netherlands, when it comes to making sure that we comply with the rules.
Two members of the anti-money-laundering Agency FIAU were sacked last summer. Are you comfortable with what happened?
Well, first of all, the anti-money-laundering agency is an independent agency. Those same two people were hired during my term in office so no one says, ‘Oh you hired them’. They say ‘you sacked them’. I didn’t hire them, I didn’t sack them. It was the agency that hired them. The agency that sacked them. You’d have to ask them why they did so.
Do you stand by your economy minister, Chris Cardona?
Definitely. I stand by all my ministers.
Daphne alleged while on official business in Germany he went to a brothel.
And he put forward a libel suit in her regard and as far as I know that libel suit is still ongoing.
Why are you letting your ministers sue a dead woman?
I think it’s a bit of a Catch-22 situation. So, on one side, if he does not sue … we will never know the truth. On the other hand, if he continues this case, people say he is suing that woman. So really and truly I think it’s a bit of a Catch-22 situation. My point is that he has given me his word that this hasn’t happened. Mrs Caruana Galizia wrote that she is basing her article on an anonymous source … And I do believe that her sons can put forward any evidence they have.
Do you think it’s seemly to have somebody in your cabinet suing the estate of an assassinated journalist?
That is a decision that he needs to make.
Surely, you’re the boss though?
No, I’m OK, but I must tell you I must tell you I must tell you again but I must tell you again it’s a bit of a Catch-22 situation where I’ll give you another example.
[Muscat seemed rattled. His normal fluency had departed, for a moment or two.]
Does this look good for the integrity of the Maltese government? One of your ministers …
It will not look good either way. I’ll give you another …
It’s worse this way, some would say.
Well, let me give you another example. Daphne Caruana Galizia just before she was killed alleged that the leader of the opposition was a cover for a money-laundering operation. As soon as she was killed, he rushed to court to drop the case as the criticism over here was that it was a convenient thing to do because now no one will really know what she could produce on the case. And the case is now dead and buried. And is that a worst-case scenario or a best-case scenario? I think that’s a decision that the minister needs to take. It’s not good either way.
You could say that. If your minister Chris Cardona wins, then he’ll take money from the estate?
I don’t think it’s an issue of money. I think you know, I, I, really don’t think it’s an issue of how much money and I think if the issue is simply a monetary issue that can be resolved very easily. I think no one is after money here. I think it’s about clearing someone’s name.
Members of the European Parliament came here and they said that there was perception of impunity in Malta on your watch. Malta hasn’t got a good reputation in Europe.
Well it depends on the MEPs that make such statements. You know the thing I know is that under my watch we had introduced party financing rules. We were the only country in Europe with no such rules. We’ve introduced a law
by means of which we give protection to whistleblowers. We’ve removed time-barring on cases of corruption for politicians. So until we came to office there was a situation where after ten years any politician could not be prosecuted on corruption simply because the cases would be time-barred. We moved and we have put in legislation where in my lifetime in any politician’s lifetime, past, present, or future. Once there is any evidence of a case of corruption time-barring would not come into effect and that the person can be prosecuted. So that’s what happened during my time in office so far.
Yes but when the MEPs came they didn’t go clap, clap, well done. They said there’s a perception of impunity. Too many people in your government appear to do bad things and get away with it.
You know I’m not here to do a tit-for-tat with some MEPs. There is a political agenda for some of those members of the European Parliament. I was a member of the European Parliament myself. I know that we’ve been caught into some sort of political crossfire with some groups wanting to take their pound of flesh from the other group and we were caught in that crossfire.
One of those MEPs who made that criticism of impunity was a Portuguese Socialist?
She’s one of the very few Socialist MEPs who criticise me. I think that in the larger narrative is that of a centre-right versus centre-left political battle.
The charge in a nutshell is that you are the artful dodger of Europe?
[laughing] I, well … if that is the charge, I am I am definitely not guilty of that. It’s preposterous. I do believe that our success story as a country might not go down well with others but is this a success story that will continue for a long time.
After Daphne’s assassination her son Matthew wrote: ‘If institutions were already working, there would be no assassination to investigate and my brothers and I would still have a mother.’ What do you say to that?
Well, I have made this very clear. I would never take issue with people who have lost their mother in such a brutal assassination. I’ve said that, that if my mother was killed in such instances I would say much worse things than that.