Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1070939
11 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 13 JANUARY 2019 NEWS allege in a clear way how the facts of the Panama Papers he recounted amounted to a crime of money laundering, but that he "without pointing his fingers at anyone, lightly indicates that this crime is punishable by a prison sen- tence of more than three years…". Grixti says this was no mere technicality ("the days of ex- cessive formality are over…" he remarks wryly), and that Busuttil had to pinpoint how each of the suspects are in- volved in the crime. "It seems the complainant does not want to assume this responsibility so much that in his summing up he says that it was German MEP [Werner] Langen who pub- licly declared that these facts indicate 'a textbook case of money laundering'. But what qualifies as a prerequisite to the magistrate is that those facts amount to a quali- fied crime and not to what someone else thinks of those facts." [Actually, it was German MEP Sven Giegold who said it was a textbook case of money laundering, not Werner Langen, the chair of the EP's PANA commit- tee, who said "it is not clear at the moment, but it looks like money laundering… we must be careful before drawing any final conclu- sions over what it actually means'."] Grixti also said triggering the judicial machinery for an inquest required not only satisfying all the elements re- quested by the law "but also that the investigation can truly happen… Busuttil sug- gested in his replies to the ap- peal that the inquiring mag- istrate is given access to the Mossack Fonseca offices in Malta but also in Panama and New Zealand, or to release [former FIAU director] Man- fred Galdes from professional secrecy when nowhere was it alleged that Galdes resigned because he was aware of ir- regularities that can prove what is being alleged here. All that is said is that Galdes re- signed on 2 August, 2016." Grixti poured cold water over Busuttil's use of episodes played over and over again during the Panama Papers saga "If the Prime Minister vis- its Azerbaijan without being accompanied by the press, how is this a crime related to money laundering? If Michael Cassar and Manfred Galdes resigned… if Nexia BT dis- posed of an amount of paper which was collected by Kas- co [Schembri's paper mer- chants]… if these occasions, even by the sake of argument or a stretch of the imagina- tion, suggest an individual crime, how is conducive to the crime of money launder- ing? It is quite unjust that the complainant suggests an elab- orate web of crimes from his subjective viewpoint, so that the magistrate – with the sys- tem's current limitations – is encumbered with extrapolat- ing whichever crime may ex- ist from all this." Grixti concluded that in his "roll call of various episodes in which he suspects ulterior motives in each occasion" Busuttil did not explain how each formed the subject mat- ter of a crime that merited a magisterial inquiry, "making it speculation in the absence of other clues." 'An offshore company on its own does not require a magisterial inquest' Grixti said that documents obtained "unlawfully" from the Panama Papers leak had no probative value: he actu- ally points out that Busut- til describes it as a "hack", therefore making it "useless for a magistrate to secure documents, or photocopies of documents that cannot be used as evidence." He also said that while it was public knowledge that Mizzi and Schembri had New Zea- land trusts, it was incumbent upon Busuttil to "describe, even if he does not advance any proof in this regard, how this money laundering was attempted or committed if this is the crime he alleges… he did not describe any situ- ation, for example layering, that is commonly used in money laundering; or how the absence of the press in Azerbaijan could have been instrumental to a money laundering plan…" "If the Prime Minister visits Azerbaijan without being accompanied by the press, how is this a crime related to money laundering? If Michael Cassar and Manfred Galdes resigned… if these occasions, even by the sake of argument or a stretch of the imagination, suggest an individual crime, how is conducive to the crime of money laundering?" 27 April, 2017: SImon Busuttil (second from left) enters court to testify on an alleged kickback recieved by the Prime Minister's chief of staff Keith Schembri on the sale of citizenship by Nexia BT partner Brian Tonna. He is seen here accompanied by lawyer Peter Fenech (left), and Jason Azzopardi (third from left) and two aides LEGAL SPEAK What is money laundering exactly? This what Chapter 373, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, says. Money laundering means: 1. The conversion or transfer of property (cash, land, securities, precious metals, etc..) knowing or suspecting that it derived directly or indirectly from the proceeds of criminal activity, for the purpose of disguising the origin of that property; 2. Disguising the true nature – source, location, movement, ownership – and even suspecting that such property was derived from criminal proceeds; 3. Acquiring and using that property knowing it derived from criminal activity; 4. Retaining without reasonable excuse that property; 5. Attempting any of the above; 6. Acting as an accomplice in any of the above. A person can be convicted of money laundering even if there is no judicial finding of guilt on the property being acquired by criminal activity, if there is circumstantial or other evidence of the predicate offence, that is, setting up a system to be used for the laundering of any criminal proceeds. Money laundering implies a criminal activity that is generating income, the funds of which must be disguised by being introduced into the financial system, broken up into less conspicuous smaller sums of cash, that are then deposited directly into a bank account, or by purchasing monetary instruments so that they can be deposited into accounts at another location. A series of conversions or movements of the funds is necessary to distance them from the source. For instance the launderer may transfer the funds to a series of bank accounts situated in different jurisdictions. The launderer would then integrate the funds by investing such funds into, for instance, real estate, luxury goods, or business ventures thereby enabling the funds to enter the economy in a legitimate manner. Source: FIAU The Panama duo: Both Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri opened offshore cmopanies in Panama and trusts in New Zealand, with emails sent to Mossack Fonseca showing that they would recieve a substantial sum of money from target clients like 17 Black in Dubai, now revealed to be owned by Electrogas shareholder Yorgen Fenech: at the time of Simon Busuttil's magisterial compaint, this detail had not yet emerged Judge Giovanni Grixti