The golden visa scheme is one that continues to raise eyebrows.

So much so, that the European Commission has even taken Malta to court over the sale of citizenship. Now the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Anthony Collins, is of the opinion that the European Commission has failed to prove that EU law regarding citizenship requires the existence of any 'genuine' or 'prior genuine' link between a Member State and an individual, other than what is required under the state's domestic law in order to lawfully grant citizenship. The court case has not yet been concluded, but there is no doubt that his opinion will be a strong one that will be considered by the court.

However, we must also ask ourselves whether, ethically speaking, selling our citizenship is right? The answer to that question is that it isn't.

We sold citizenship to people who do not have genuine links to Malta. This is not to mention that, by doing so, we sold EU citizenship, and not just Maltese. Now many times have the authorities said that there are checks and balances in place, which is good of course, but it only takes one misstep, one mistake, accepting the application of one person who fools the system, for Malta's reputation to take a hit.

Malta's IIP came to a close some years ago, but the country still runs a citizenship by investment scheme.

The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation recently published a research report on golden visas. In a statement, it said that transparency watchdogs around Europe criticise golden visas for insufficient scrutiny over who benefits from guiding applicants through the process and holding their investment in the target countries. "Property, they note, is also a convenient vehicle for money laundering. Other golden visa countries offer visa buyers options to direct their investment into high-added-value sectors, including start-ups and universities. But in Malta, all golden visa buyers must buy or rent a property." It is a risky way for Malta to generate income.

In its report, the foundation highlights that many golden visa buyers did not reside in Malta.

Yes, money is brought into the economy, but are we truly satisfied with just that? The report highlights another point. "From the number of visa applications we know that it created a demand for thousands of residential units, since buying or renting a property is a requirement for the golden visa. In contrast to other Southern European countries, where similar schemes were initiated to prop up their crashing real estate markets during economic downturns, the Maltese real estate sector was already overheating at the time when the golden visa was launched, and it is increasingly unaffordable for the residents." Malta's housing market is already extremely expensive, and it is almost impossible for young people coming out of university to purchase a home.

There is also the issue of secrecy tied with the scheme. A point highlighted in the foundation's report, is that government should "eliminate the culture of secrecy and make sure that the media, civil society, and the general public could scrutinise reliable, recent and official data. Who are the visa buyers? How do they behave after purchasing the golden visa? How many apartments that they rent are managed by owners of the same companies that provide immigration services?" Another point it raised is that the scheme's reputation and standing would benefit from broader improvements in preventing and mitigating conflicts of interest in the Maltese civil service, as well as lobbying transparency. "Political appointees and other PEPs involved in every step of the process should be subject to cooling off periods, and ethical requirements should be made more stringent." It also found that there is an overall lack of scrutiny and transparency with regard to the roles and influence of concessionaires, licensed agents, and real estate actors that are often closely linked to concessionaires and agents. These are just some of the points made by the foundation.

It states that In the countries they examined and interviewed experts in, the foundation and the country experts did not find a single golden visa scheme which does not provoke corruption, reputational risks, and/or inequality.

Frankly the scheme should be scrapped. But if the European court rules in Malta's favour in the court case, and if the Maltese government will insist on continuing to sell golden visas despite the risks and the scheme itself being immoral, then at the very least the system needs to be reformed to ensure more safeguards need to be put in place. It should at least tackle the points highlighted by the foundation.