The Nationalist Party has accused Prime Minister Joseph Muscat of deviating public attention from the Panama Papers scandal by implying that according to the Opposition’s own yard-stick, PN MP Tonio Fenech should be removed, due to his links with offshore companies.
The Malta Independent sent a number of questions to the PN, however they remained unanswered. Mr Fenech was found to be a Director in a company whose parent company is registered in the British Virgin Isles. He also serves as company secretary for two companies owned by a First Names Group, a provider of trust services – located in Jersey, another tax haven.
Instead of replying to the pointed questions, the PN said:
“As Tonio Fenech explained in his press release, what the Prime Minister and the Labour Party are trying to imply is complete false.
“After serving for nine years in the country’s executive, making one of Malta’s best ever Finance Ministers, in 2013, Tonio Fenech resumed his professional career in the financial services. Since then, he has always declared his professional services and involvement in companies in the declaration of assets submitted to Parliament. It is illogical for the Prime Minister to criticize something today which has been public for the past three years.
“It is clear that whilst the country is speaking about the scandal of Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi, who had their secret companies in Panama opened a few days after being elected to power, the Prime Minister is trying to destroy someone’s professional career by lying and trying to implicate things which do not exist.
“The Nationalist Party insists that the law should apply to everybody, because nobody in this country is above law.
“It is such a pity that the Prime Minister is reducing politics to this level.”
In a Labour Party press conference yesterday afternoon, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici said that because Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil believes that any Politically Exposed Person linked with offshore companies is corrupt, therefore action should be taken against Mr Fenech.
It has been argued by members of civil society and experts within the financial services sector, that unless a PEP is the Ultimate Beneficial Owner of a company registered in a financially secretive jurisdiction, or has some sort of a stake with the company’s UBO, simply having some role within a company with offshore links does not necessarily imply corruption.
With regard to the Panama Papers scandal, it was found that former Energy and Health Minister Konrad Mizzi and the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Keith Schembri were in possession of a trust and a company in New Zealand and the financially secretive jurisdiction of Panama. In response to the scandal, Dr Muscat reshuffled Cabinet for a third time, stripping Dr Mizzi of his health and energy portfolios but retaining him as a Cabinet Minister – and tasking him with the major health and energy projects.
Mr Schembri’s position remained unchanged, with Dr Muscat stating that he still holds the Prime Minister’s trust.
The concerns raised with regard to Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri’s links to the Panama Papers scandal is that in their executive role, opportunities for kickbacks and bribery are rife. In addition to this, the fact that holdings are in the financial secretive jurisdiction of Panama, which has made a name for concealing wealth of the world’s elite, make the situation all the more concerning.
Questions sent by TMI:
1. What is the PN's position on offshore directorships/ positions such as company secretary by its MPs?
2. The fact that Tonio Fenech is not an Ultimate Beneficial Onwer [since it is the UBO who has the opportunity to avoid tax or conceal wealth], and the fact that he declared his ties with companies in the declaration of assets mean that his position is justified?
3. Have you discussed Mr Fenech's links with the numerous companies in light of the Panama Papers scandal?
4. What was the reason provided to you for Mr Fenech's directorships/various positions? i.e. did he assure you that his role has been chosen due to his expertise? Has he guaranteed that he does not have a stake in the UBO of the various companies he is involved with?
5. Have you asked all PN deputies, as well those associated with the parties to declare any directorships, positions or status as a UBO of all offshore and onshore companies? If not what is the reason for this?