The connection between money laundering and the ownership of exotic animals has not been explored so far in academic literature. But for those who care to notice, there seems to be a trend in Malta: persons accused of money laundering and of drugs, or both, tend to own exotic animals as pets.

It does not work the other way round of course: it doesn’t mean that all owners of exotic animals tend to launder funds. It does not follow logically. But owning such species should raise red flags for enforcement, nonetheless. It’s one thing owning a hamster, and another owning a zebra, for a trophy rather than companionship.

With money, the wild can be tamed and commodified. The phenomenon goes back at least to imperial times, even before the Romans owned half of Africa. Although nowadays one expects cars such as  Lamborghinis or Ferraris as status symbols, yachts, property, jewellery, designer gear or even maybe a stable full of horses, owning zebras, lions, pumas and exotic birds in Malta, on top of everything else, is not the work of fiction. And it’s deeply psychological. There’s a social construct to it, as such ownership elevates one’s profile, even if for the wrong reasons as one risks exposure through high visibility.

There was a recent study of university students on the Tiger King series and their perception of ownership of unaccredited zoos. The study produced some interesting results especially among those that had not seen the series: it seems that the respondents had an established correlation between what is known as the ‘short dark triad’ scale used in the DSM personality inventory and such ownership. The triad refers to narcissistic traits, of manipulative inclination or Machiavellianism, and the lack of empathy.

Participants who were prone towards this triad were themselves in favour of the ownership of exotic pets and private zoos after watching the series. On the other hand, those who did not fall within the triad description refrained from endorsing the practice even after watching the series. Of course, it’s just one study, but it had over a thousand respondents, so it’s not a random conclusion.

Exotic animals have been an integral part of the criminal world’s iconography, and not by chance. Pablo Escobar had his own zoo, the Hacienda Napoles, which he even opened to the public. His original four hippos multiplied to 130 since his death in 1993, and despite efforts to cull them, there are still around 60 feral hippos living in the nearby Magdalena river. Escobar also kept giraffes, ostriches and elephants, amongst others. Sure, he had the jungle for a backyard where he could accommodate his extensive collection of wildlife, but Malta is too small to hide or muffle such animals.

The Mexican drug cartels were quick to emulate the Medellin aristocracy to the letter, in what animal advocates have dubbed as ‘narco zoos’. Drug lords such as El Chapo and Lazcano were known to have kept tigers and crocodiles to torture their victims. A police raid on a fuel smuggling ranch outside Mexico City only last month rendered close to 50 live exotic animals, mostly big cats, and a number of stuffed carcasses on the property.

Joseph Gallo, of the Colombo crime family in New York, kept a lion called Cleo in the basement to ‘scare off’ debtors. The Camorra in Naples kept a crocodile on the roof of one of their quarters to scare late ‘pizzo’ payers. They also trained a pair of African grey parrots to deliver cocaine, which pair could ask questions such as ‘how much do you want?’ and if sensing stress, they’d say ‘I’ll shoot you’. The Mafia were known to keep crocodiles, pythons and anacondas, apart from big cats, to scare their victims, often feeding victims to the animals.

Crime fiction has also repeated this imagery in the likes of Scarface.

There’s more grey literature published by NGOs than academic studies that focus on the connection of animal ownership by criminal lords, and it seems that it’s a question of copying behaviour – of the rich, to confirm one’s status and power. The money laundering watchdogs, such as FATF, do not explain the connection either although they link laundering with the illegal trade of endangered species, for a different set of reasons, usually related to the ‘crime convergence’ of smuggling or parallel trafficking of species and humans as the predicate offences.

It would be interesting to study the connection between owning such species and crime in Malta. Or simply study Malta’s Tiger ‘Kinks’ for all its worth. 

There’s certainly a convergence between different crime categories at the surface, but it is still uncharted waters to the researcher.  Perhaps Malta could have its own case study, if only the enforcement authorities asked the right questions.