This is how Muscat’s administration produces a farcical “inquiry” into something. An inquiry that is intended to fail.
Assume that most inquiries are a cover-up under the present administration.
On that basis, assume too that Egrant really did belong to Michelle Muscat. It hasn’t yet been proven otherwise.
You can read it here in the tread reader app or scroll through the screenshots below.
If a government crony ‘investigating’ the government itself based on information supplied by the government & further limiting his review to exclude VISAs & trading in influence is “robust & serious”, I’m Jessica Rabbit. https://t.co/clUAmilvYM
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
In fact, we should kick the tires a little bit and analyse the report that "speaks volumes".
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Here's the report:https://t.co/pMz2b04mya
This is what created the need for the report: https://t.co/jx098Mf3mN
And here's a thread. Buckle down. 1/
We should probably start from the "regulator", Carmel De Gabriele.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Meet the bastion between baddies on the one hand and EU passports sold by @HenleyPartners amongst others on the other.
Reassuring. 2/ pic.twitter.com/cDP9tAKxNc
Ok so the "regulator" is a septuagenarian (if not octogenarian) whose career in the civil service started under Mintoff in 1978 and somehow ended up supervising a government Agency. 3/ pic.twitter.com/AxMokOiWzJ
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Surely the regulator should not have worked previously with the Agency or Authority that he is now regulating, right? Worse if it was an iced bun. That would be an indication of revolving doors / leave him open to blackmail, right?
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Whoops. 4/ pic.twitter.com/slTfSI5sFj
Moving on. Let's look at scope.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Degabriele notes that he was tasked by the #GoldenPassport scheme agency (the MIIPA) & of his own initiative opted to review the IIP files submitted by @Chetcuti_Cauchi from inception to date. 5/ pic.twitter.com/JslybqxgW1
Degabriele also notes that the "main IIP-related allegation" in the #EnqueteExclusive sting was that CCA could "successfully convince a minister to approve a previously refused application by re-presenting the dossier with new information".
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Erm that's not quite all there is
6/ pic.twitter.com/uW16RpBkZL
And then, bam he adds the first (of many) disclaimer. It is beyond the scope and functions of the Regulator to address the authenticity or otherwise of these allegations. Which kind begs the question as to what on earth he was looking at to begin with…. 7/ pic.twitter.com/W2ckMCqiuw
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
We also know that separately, his remit does not cover:
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
– #GoldenVISAs (there's no "regulator")
– trading in influence (a police matter)
– whether giving @Chetcuti_Cauchi access to Castille or Ministers / PS to film their adverts / promote their "charity" is right… 8/ pic.twitter.com/UYhsBeBipc
But at least we know he looked at the files right, looked at whether they were complete, had full audit trails and ran independent background checks, right?
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Nope. 9/ pic.twitter.com/WUDCJkx7zr
The useful tool only reviewed the documents provided to him by the Authority being scrutinised. Worse, in a later recommendation, the "regulator" notes that systems are so primitive as to not have any audit trails.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Fascinating. 10/ pic.twitter.com/2fCychENqa
So:
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
(1) crony,
(2) narrow scope of review,
(3) only reviewing documents provided by the entity being scrutinised and
(4) an entity that conveniently does not use a system that leaves an audit trail. Amazing.
It gets worse.
11/
The regulator seems to focus a lot on the 100% success rate boasted about by @Chetcuti_Cauchi on camera.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
But ignores that
(a) that claim is everywhere, even in bios.
(b) success could also mean a visa.
(c) a client refused in Malta could apply to Moldova or Cyprus….
12/ pic.twitter.com/zzieZwV1Bj
Observation 4 talks about how one application checked had two reference numbers & it transpired that it was an instance where CCA applied without applying, got comments then resubmitted a "fuller" application.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Sounds a lot like a reconsideration, no? 13/ pic.twitter.com/lrUzWrwMvG
It gets worse. The Regulator also inadvertently not only mentions that there is a "pre-pre application pre-vetting process" but that there is a pre-pre-pre step where a "client" is checked as to whether to go into the #GoldenPassport or #GoldenVISA queue or elsewhere. 14/ pic.twitter.com/yXEw5eYtEA
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Despite these instances (reported by the Regulator himself) of pre-pre-pre vetting & pre-pre-pre feedback & lobbying, the regulator in Observation 6 finds that no application by CC was ever submitted more than once.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
15/ pic.twitter.com/NFbXABAFoy
Observation 7 undoes this further.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
42% of applications contained red flags where the Passport sales agency (MIIPA) asked CCA for more information / clarifications before accepting.
16% of applications contained red flags but no documented reasoning for accepting. 16/ pic.twitter.com/hYnSEtYDdz
The regulator seems to place a lot of emphasis on the "criminal record" (not mentioned in the #EnqueteExclusive tape) but then glosses over "red flags" or in his own words "damning information" (see further down).
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
No wonder "bloopers" happen. 17/https://t.co/QF7ATCBRsx pic.twitter.com/JurjPmH7OF
Besides concluding mystically (and Barr-like) that there was "no collusion" (after excluding it from the scope), the regulator also concluded that there is "no evidence of trying to get around the selection criteria".
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
But the report doesn't quite say that. 18/ pic.twitter.com/0YDaJbXYEp
Observation 5 – the "external due diligence" was 1 year old by the time the applicant was recommended for citizenship. The reason – it mysteriously took 1 year to translate 58 pages.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Please make the name of that translation agency public…. 19/ pic.twitter.com/kloR9TXDCj
Observation 9 – looks a lot like evidence of trying to get around selection criteria wouldn't you say?
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
20/ pic.twitter.com/WoJNcOMsqm
Or Observation 11 also known as the "switcheroo" or Observation 12 also known as the "fuck they realised, let's withdraw the application and apply for:
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
– a #Goldenvisa
– a Cypriot something
– a Moldovan something
– a St Kitts something
etc. instead. 22/ pic.twitter.com/mNJXGnqDrx
The regulator sums these up himself: 23/ pic.twitter.com/zTkONZGJBS
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
So quite why he contradicted himself in the Executive summary is another matter.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
24/ pic.twitter.com/MqN1cp33Xk
The conclusion is another gem.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Based on the documents provided by the Agency which he is vetting, he concluded that CCA "never engaged in any of the activities 'allegedly' mentioned in the recorded interview".
He had the recording.
He excluded the activities from scope.
25/ pic.twitter.com/XyL84TDAmo
In closing, our dear Regulator offers some recommendations (which he himself notes have been ignored in the past) being:
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
A. The Malta #GoldenPassport application process has no audit trail.
26/ pic.twitter.com/JERwiVUyOo
B. The Malta #GoldenPassport scheme rules have a loophole that allows persons convicted (with a criminal record, ie not "just red flags") to get citizenship for cash. 27/ pic.twitter.com/plVPp5RyOK
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
C. Passport salespersons such as Henley or CCA are gaming the system essentially applying and if red flags are picked up and insurmountable simply withdrawing the application and moving to another regime or country with a scheme (eg Cyprus). There is no exchange of info. 28/ pic.twitter.com/G3JQM0u7fO
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Repairing this thread – continues here:https://t.co/Ik8fVlTD3H
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
E. Lastly & in case you're not concerned yet, the regulator notes that it is in fact the Agency that regulates salespersons who, as noted with the pre-pre-pre vetting tend to be overfamiliar with agents.
— BugM (@bugdavem) November 12, 2019
Like appearing in their promotional videos, presumably. End/ pic.twitter.com/rX26KPNIkl
