Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/290775
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 6 APRIL 2014 6 News Fenech's law firm becomes IIP agent MATTHEW VELLA THE president of the Nationalist Party's executive, Ann Fenech, has dismissed suggestions that her law firm's commercial interest in the In- dividual Investor Programme con- flicts with her public declarations against the sale of Maltese citizen- ship. Fenech, a top maritime legal expert, was a main critic of Joseph Muscat's controversial plan to sell Maltese, and EU citizenship to the global rich for the price of €650,000. Her legal firm Fenech & Fenech Advocates has now been granted a licence to act as an introducer of po- tential applicants for naturalisation. Only last week on PBS's Dissett, Opposition leader Simon Busut- til said that he expected his party's MPs not to have a conflict of inter- est by having a professional interest in promoting the IIP to possible ap- plicants. "I don't give instructions on what someone does in their pro- fession. But I expect our members not to have a conflict on the basis of their profession… I wouldn't toler- ate a clear conflict of interest," Bu- suttil said. Fenech, who is not an MP, had previously complained that citizen- ship was being sold "for a measly €650,000 and less for family mem- bers", before the government added a combined property and financial investment element of €500,000. "Fenech and Fenech Advocates is a large organisation specialising in a vast number of areas," Fenech told MaltaToday this week when asked about her firm's commercial interest in the sale of citizenship. The person handling the IIP account is another partner of Fenech and Fenech. "Fenech and Fenech will, like other law firms, offer the services associated with the IIP as part of its corporate and financial services portfolio. My personal view on the structure [IIP], like those of organi- sations such as the Chamber of Ad- vocates who expressed serious con- cerns on the matter, do not come into the equation at all, because the structure is now part of the law of Malta and as an established law firm we need to service the clientele that we have. "As it happens, I myself am not in- volved at all because as everyone is aware my area of work is the mari- time sector," Fenech said. Indeed Fenech has used her legal expertise to point out the risk of not having a maritime impact assess- ment for the berthing of an LNG tanker inside Marsaxlokk Bay to provide natural gas to a new power plant at Delimara. But she also remains a critic of the IIP's 12-month residence element, introduced in the latest incarna- tion of the IIP. "Personally, I don't believe the duration of one year is good enough," Fenech had said in a column she penned in the press. "It should not satisfy the [European] Commission and it will not satisfy us, the genuine Maltese citizens." The IIP demands that applicants are resident in Malta for 12 months before they are issued a certification of naturalisation. Since the IIP ap- plication process takes six months, applicants may only need a func- tional address for the duration of six months before formally applying. Applicants for Maltese citizenship not only have to pay €650,000 and buy a €350,000 property acquisition and €150,000 in financial bonds: they also pay processing fees of at least €7,500, apart from fees payable to the legal firm that carries out due diligence clearance for them. Becoming an IIP introducer While Henley & Partners are still officially the concessionaire of the IIP, under changes to the citizen- ship programme other businesses and accredited persons can intro- duce potential applicants to the IIP. Identity Malta can licence "ac- credited persons" who can then submit prospective IIP applica- tions. Accredited persons must be employees or directors of author- ized registered mandatory (ARM) companies, and have to pay a €1,500 application fee for their licence and an annual €1,500 renewal fee. They must also provide a profes- sional indemnity cover of €1 mil- lion, have a recognised professional qualification, and have access to online due diligence databases. Individuals which during the first year of their accreditation present three applications that are success- ful, will be entitled to become ac- credited persons on a three-year basis and charged a reduced re- newal fee of €1,000 per year. Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi has now filed a new parliamentary motion calling for the repeal of the latest legal notice on the IIP, which demands that applicants be resi- dent in Malta for 12 months. The Opposition is claiming that the legal notice does not demand that the residence period be "effec- tive" and that this opens the door to abuse. It also insists that it's con- cessionaire Henley & Partners that it is running the IIP and not gov- ernment agency Identity Malta. Simon Busuttil said he will dis- close all the names of naturalized citizens under the Individual In- vestor Programme through his position on the board regulating Identity Malta's decisions. Simon Busuttil: "I don't give instructions on what someone does in their profession. But I expect our members [MPs] not to have a conflict on the basis of their profession" PN executive committee president Ann Fenech: "Fenech and Fenech Advocates is a large organisation… I myself am not involved, my area is the maritime sector." PN executive committee president Ann Fenech: "Fenech and Fenech Advocates is a large organisation… I myself am not involved, my area is the maritime sector" "My personal view does not come into the equation… the IIP is now part of the law and as an established law firm we need to service the clientele we have" 15 years of court action and MEPA's most lucrative contract PAGE 1 To take in the magnitude of this legal battle, one has to appre- ciate that De Gaetano (brother to former Chief Justice Anthony De Gaetano) was well versed in the law of the land. He decided to wage a campaign that saw him opening le- gal cases on every single front: defa- mation, unjust reprimand, injunc- tions against MEPA, criminal action against falsification of plans, damag- es for illegal works… a blitzkrieg of writs, warrants for injunction, and civil and criminal complaints. The case dates back to 1998, when De Gaetano claimed that the next-door development that left his home wall exposed to the elements had been secured on a MEPA per- mit based on falsified architectural plans. De Gaetano filed an ordinary citi- zen's complaint to MEPA to report that architect Raymond Farrugia had filed false plans to secure the permit. Instead, De Gaetano was accused by the director of planning, and later MEPA director-general God- win Cassar, of having himself filed a false report – an accusation that was made without any disciplinary hearing, and was also entered into his personal work record. The gravity of the allegation led De Gaetano to launch two crimi- nal libel cases and also a civil case. In 2005, a magistrate declared that the MEPA lawyer had made "no false, untrue or incorrect reports"; in 2008, a civil court decision that found the accusation was made without fair hearing was confirmed on appeal; and then in 2010, God- win Cassar (incidentally, brother to current MEPA chairman Vince Cassar) admitted to having accused De Gaetano "incorrectly". There was also a police challenge that De Gaetano filed, which in 2005 saw the court finding prima facie evidence that architect Raymond Farrugia had made false reports and that the police had refused to take action against Farrugia. Un- der court order, the police started criminal proceedings against the architect. In the legal battle that ensued, De Gaetano also secured the court's prohibitory injunction to stop MEPA from regularising Farrugia's illegal development in September 2000. In two separate decisions in 2001 and 2004, Mr Justice J.R. Mi- callef rejected all MEPA's pleas to revoke the injunction, but never took a decision to declare the origi- nal MEPA permit illegal. De Gaetano also filed a civil case against Raymond Farrugia for dam- ages against him and for restoration of damaged property during the ex- ecution of the illegal permits. The decision is currently under appeal. On 27 March 2014, the courts up- held De Gaetano's plea that the orig- inal 1998 MEPA permit was unlaw- ful. The court remarked that even MEPA officials testifying in the case had expressed their surprise at how the MEPA permit was approved on the same day that it was published for notification in the newspapers – on a Saturday, when MEPA offices happen to be closed. Even more importantly, the court declared that MEPA's subsequent attempts to rectify the permit were done illegally, with the aid of cer- tain authority officials and in full knowledge that false plans had been submitted for the permit to be is- sued. The court annulled all the permits issued on the site since 1998, and called for MEPA to take action in From left to right: Abela Advocates' Lydia and Robert Abela; George Abela, who as Abela Stafrace & Advocates with Ian Stafrace, was asked to take the bulk of MEPA's legal services. Stafrace later became MEPA chief executive