The inquiry has found no evidence of the claims made by Efimova, Daphne Caruana Galizia, and Pierre Portelli. Do you have faith in Magistrate Aaron Bugeja’s conclusions? 

The subject matter of this part-published inquiry was never the focus of my work. And while I take no issue with what has been released so far, I deplore the way that it has been spun by the Labour Party. This inquiry had little if anything to do with Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri and yet they latched onto it, unashamedly declaring that their names have been cleared.

The organisation that must have gone into this is astounding with images circulating on social media falsely declaring that Mizzi and Schembri have been exonerated from all wrongdoing. Most recently, Pilatus Bank joined the fray to declare itself absolved too, while its owner remains under house arrest in the United States and faces a 125-year prison term. This disinformation campaign constitutes an attempt to deceive the electorate that I condemn in the strongest of terms.

 

You publicly backed Efimova both in the local and European fora, holding meetings with her while she was in a Greek prison, even testifying in the Greek Court of Appeal against her extradition. Do you still stand by her claims? And do you now believe she should be extradited back to Malta given the inquiry’s conclusions?

Maria Efimova is a former employee of the now notorious Pilatus Bank. In the last year, the focus of my work has been on Pilatus Bank, Nexia BT, Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri. My collaboration with Maria Efimova focused on my work and so did my testimony in Greece. On that, she has been proved right time and time again. She was right about Pilatus Bank’s client list, about the relationship between the bank and Nexia BT and Henley and Partners, and about dubious processes of the bank, all while her former employer is under house arrest in the United States for money laundering. 

The vast amount of information Maria Efimova revealed – that had nothing to do with the part-published inquiry – continues to be accurate. Efimova remains a key source of the assassinated journalist. Of course, she should not be extradited to Malta.

 

There has been a large fallout win the PN following the Egrant Inquiry. You, along with 10 MPs, publicly backed Simon Busuttil in open opposition to Leader Adrian Delia’s decision to remove him from his shadow cabinet and ask that he suspend himself from the PN Parliamentary Group. Given that the allegations were one of the key themes of the PN’s general election campaign, why shouldn’t Busuttil shoulder the political responsibility and is openly rebelling against the party’s leader that is detrimental to the party’s future?

The focus of that campaign was corruption in government, particularly in relation to Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi. Simon Busuttil was Leader of the Opposition and it was his duty to speak about allegations of high-level corruption. This is the case both for allegations that are highly difficult to prove – such as the ownership of an anonymous company that involved bearer shares – as well as those with all the proof in the world, such as the revelations on Mizzi and Schembri that are backed by FIAU reports – in circumstances that indicate criminal activity could be ongoing even today. 

Simon Busuttil paid his dues for the election result. He stepped down as party leader. I commented publicly that the PN is stronger united. I stand by that statement. 

 

Do you believe Adrian Delia should remain Leader of the PN?

There is no question that Adrian Delia was elected democratically. He should, of course, remain the leader of the PN while he continues to enjoy the support of electors. 

 

Turning to the leaked FIAU report which you published and had submitted the document to Magistrate Doreen Clark. Did she accept the document as evidence? And did she expressly tell you to not publish the report?

No, a copy of the document was not requested. Doreen Clarke was investigating leaks from the FIAU not the subject matter of my report. Neither did she ask me not to publish the report. There is no inquiry ongoing at present that deals with the report on Konrad Mizzi. The inquiry that will investigate this report is the one that the suspects, in collusion with the Attorney General, are doing everything possible to prevent from taking place. 

In any case, the confidentiality provisions in AML laws are meant to ensure the suspect does not abscond or destroy evidence after becoming aware of an investigation. Applying those laws to a situation where most of Europe knows about Konrad Mizzi’s dealings is a perversion of the intention of that law. 

 

Are you aware if the FIAU took further action on this particular report?

I am not aware of any developments.

 

The FIAU had said that the document you published was edited and modified. Can you explain?

Sensitive documents such as these tend to contain security features that could expose the source. This is why the original cannot be published. The report was transcribed, but it remains a faithful transcription. This is what I imagine the FIAU means by ‘discrepancies’. It is highly deceptive to state this as it feeds into the PL’s efforts to discredit anything that reveals the wrongdoing of one of their own and it confirms the extent of the political capture of a once respected institution. 

The FIAU confirmed the authenticity of this report when they called for my arrest.

 

It can be argued that by publishing the report you are jeopardizing the integrity of the FIAU within the Egmont Group (an international network of FIAUs) and may preclude the unit from receiving further outside information which may be crucial to future investigations. Do you still stand by your decision to publish the report?

This is nonsense of course. In normal circumstances, the evidence collected would have already been used in court and become a matter of public record. The FIAU’s concern is that they cannot justify their dereliction of duty that verges on complicity. 

The integrity of the FIAU was compromised when they whitewashed the Pilatus Bank of money laundering allegations in September 2016 which was pointed out by the European Banking Authority. The integrity of the FIAU continues to be jeopardised by their insistence on ignoring the law and not taking action against Nexia BT. Nexia BT is an obliged entity under anti-money-laundering laws. The FIAU is responsible for obliged entities. The breaches of Nexia BT are extensive, overwhelming, well documented and in the public domain. The alternate reality the FIAU has created in which laws do not apply to obliged entities which service corrupt politicians has destroyed its integrity. 

The only way for the FIAU to regain its integrity is for its board to resign en masse and replaced with persons willing to their duty.

 

The FIAU in its reply following the report’s publication said that you used the information for your own political mileage. If it was a matter of public interest, why was the report published a few days after the conclusion of the Egrant Inquiry especially given that a magisterial inquiry is underway?

There is no magisterial inquiry underway, no investigation is ongoing. It is being resisted at all costs. The Attorney General just appealed a decision to recuse Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi.

I published the report after the FIAU buried it; the police failed to act and the judiciary was prevented from even starting an investigation. I published it on that particular day because it became immediately clear that the PL would use the part-published inquiry to absolve all wrongdoing. The extent of their disregard for the truth is terrifying. People could not be left in the dark any longer. 

 

In the document you published, I noticed that a few names were removed, including Jonathan Ferris, whom most people believe is your whistleblower, except one, why?

Jonathan Ferris worked at the FIAU at a time that may perhaps indicate that the information in his possession could be of great importance. He formally requested whistleblower protection in order to be able to expose that information legally so that justice can take its course. He was denied that protection by the very people the information in his possession could incriminate. It is outrageous that he remains without that protection. In the published FIAU report, I categorically deny that Mr Ferris is my source.

I took the decision to publish the report a few hours before it was released. The publication of the name of the author is an oversight.