There is an angle that has been generally overlooked in the current national controversy regarding the Individual Investor Programme: whose fingerprint is on the bill?

The aim of this investigation is not aimed primarily at discovering who the origin of this controversial plan was. Most probably, this was not the work of one person but of more than one. Most probably too, it came as a confluence of different persons/bodies from maybe different countries and with a different background.

But beyond finding out who was the author/s, a careful analysis can still discover fingerprints that may be very revealing.

It would seem – this is no doubt speculative and somewhat arbitrary – that the core concept of IIP owes its origin to the many services, offered all over the world, which are sometimes called as ‘tax evasion’ advice but which defend themselves and say they are ‘tax planning’ or ‘tax avoidance’ services.

There are many companies in Malta who specialise in giving such advice and there are an even greater number of companies all over the world who do this kind of work. The world being as it is, even the countries on what is called as the White List differ in their taxation structures and general treatment of the much-desired foreign investors.

For instance, David Cameron himself spoke of rolling out the red carpet if French business people upset at the tax hikes in their country were to relocate to London.

Apart from people who act that openly, there are, of course, others who may have other reasons to keep their moves hidden especially from the tax authorities of their countries. We who live here cannot set up ourselves as judges when in the first place we do not know the facts. The IIP plan may also be attractive because it opens the Schengen doors to non-Schengen residents.

Of course there may be others who have murky, sleazy, reasons or who have a criminal past or present. Unfortunately, while many in the world-wide financial advice field offer legal advice, there are others who cut corners, whose ethical standards are not so high, and who offer criminals a legal cover-up and the appearance of respectability.

Any of the many tax planning advice centres in the world could have come up with the IIP plan and strategy and there are many countries in the world who would take on their advice. There are also other countries in the world who would walk a mile away from such suggestions. There are countries such as Cyprus which had their well-known problems and wanted a quick fill-up of incoming investment to stave off real poverty. Fortunately, Malta is not in this state but its present government has seen fit to go for this IIP scheme disregarding the damage done to Malta’s international image.

Nevertheless, the world at large has now built up a redoubtable network against money laundering and the infiltration of criminals in other countries and in the banking system where trust is everything. Malta is a full-paid up member of these networks, they are too many to be listed, and there is no doubt that, apart from the due diligence carried out by Malta before issuing a citizenship certificate, these networks are still very operational and effective.

Now in these issues, we cannot be or act virginal when other countries – and we are not talking about the ‘usual suspects’ – maybe operate along other principles without declaring they do so.

However, a government of a small island state such as Malta playing very much above its level should have thought twice before approaching this proposal.