In August 1973 Jan-Erik Olsson put on a woman's wig and oversized sunglasses, stormed into Stockholm's Credit Banken and fired his machine gun into the ceiling. He ordered the cashiers to fill bags with cash. Customers were held at gun point. But one of the cashiers pressed an alarm button informing the police the bank was being robbed. In no time the bank was surrounded by police officers and Olsson was trapped. There was no way he could escape with his bags of cash.
He took the four cashiers hostages and retreated with them into the bank's vault. For five days he held those cashiers hostage while Swedish police tried to convince him to give up and let the hostages go free. Even Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme intervened directly. But those negotiations led nowhere. Olsson was requesting 700,000 dollars and a getaway car and would only release the hostages once he had safely escaped.
On the fifth day Swedish police pounced, firing tear gas canisters into the bank's vault and forcing Olsson to surrender. Remarkably the four hostages refused to come out until they were assured that Olsson would be safe. When they did come out they insisted on shaking hands and hugging Olsson, the man who held them captive for five days and endangered their lives. Most were left incredulous. Why were these four people, whose lives had been turned upside down by this bank robber, showing him such care and warmth? How come four people, subjected to five long days of intense trauma by Olson, whose selfish actions had scarred them probably for life, showed such affectionate loyalty to the very man who harmed them?
That bizarre response of Olsson's hostages would come to be termed Stockholm syndrome - an irrational emotional bond developed by those who have been put in danger, whose freedom has been taken and who suffer serious harm with those responsible for causing that suffering. Malta is witnessing its own Stockholm syndrome. It's been going on for the last few years but particularly so in the last few days.
The OCCRP just uncovered documents showing that the company which paid Joseph Muscat tens of thousands of euro had a secret deal to receive 30% of profits from the fraudulent Vitals-Steward deal. Shaukat Ali and his son Asad were behind that secret deal. Steward paid millions of euros to the Alis. Shaukat Ali and his son in turn funnelled money into Joseph Muscat's BOV account. If the Steward deal fell through the Alis were guaranteed to get 30% of that 100 million euro termination deal which Joseph Muscat struck behind even his own ministers' backs. It was a win-win situation.
The money the Alis were paid by Steward was funneled through the very same company that bound itself to pay Joseph Muscat 540,000 euro over 36 months, which contract could be extended indefintely - Accutor Consulting AG. We now know that when Swiss bank UBS froze Accutor's accounts Steward continued to pay the Alis through another Swiss company, Canberra International GmbH which was controlled by Asad Ali directly. In a document from March 2021, Accutor and Canberra asked Steward to pay 500,000 euro for "consulting fees" to Canberra instead of Accutor. An e-mail sent to Armin Ernst showed that 1 million euro were paid to Ali's Canberra through Spain's Santander bank and Bank of America in separate payments during 2021.
When Canberra itself fell under scrutiny Asad Ali sent Ernst an agreement transferring their Steward participation rights to another company, this time based in Delaware, called K4C LLC. Asad was in a panic and told Ernst to transfer those rights quickly.
In November 2021 Shaukat Ali insisted with Ernst that he was entitled to more money "as everyone else is getting paid from this operation". Who were those "everyone else"?
Joseph Muscat received 60,000 euro in four separate payments from Accutor AG and Spring X. But those payments stopped when UBS froze Accutor's accounts. The likelihood is that Muscat kept getting paid his dues as part of that 540,000 euro deal from other companies. No documents have yet surfaced showing payments to Muscat from Canberra or K4C but it's highly likely that Muscat continued to receive payments from other sources. Was Muscat one of those "everyone else" who was still getting paid?
Muscat knew exactly who Shaukat Ali was. Ali claimed he was Muscat's consultant. Muscat must have known exactly what was going on. It is inconceivable that Muscat was not aware that Shaukat Ali was given a 30% cut on the Steward deal. Shaukat Ali had no real power. He was owed nothing. The real power was in Muscat's hands and later Robert Abela's. The real reason Steward was compelled to cede 30% to Shaukat Ali was not Shaukat Ali or his son Asad. The real reason is evident from the fact that Joseph Muscat's first intervention as soon as he was ousted was to accompany Armin Ernst to Castille to apply pressure on Robert Abela to retain Steward and to give them an even better "bankable" deal.
Joseph Muscat's whole being is purely transactional. He rented his own car to the state to make 7000 euro as soon as he took office. He secured hundreds of thousands of public funds for his wife's dodgy Marigold Foundation. He was given a 21,000 euro "donation" of first class tickets to Dubai by a secret benefactor. You can bet your bottom dollar that the only reason Muscat was on Armin Ernst's side that 2020 January morning in Castille was because there was something in it for him - quite something.
As all the dots join up Muscat's central role in that massive Vitals-Steward scam becomes all too evident. Yet as OCCRP published the actual documents exposing more of the industrial scale fraud the comments board was flooded with "Muscat King", "Muscat the best", "Joseph we love you". If that's not Stockholm syndrome I don't know what it is.