So it’s OK to bribe, but not OK to be bribed
Joseph Muscat called in the press three days ago to help him inform the nation of what he will do about corruption when he is prime minister.
He will legislate for immunity from prosecution (doubtless without a free vote) for “people and companies” involved in corruption, in exchange for information that will allow the prosecution of public officers involved in the same scam.
I blinked and read that twice. With two lawyers – however inept and hapless – to prop him up as deputy leaders, you would think that at least one of them would have let Muscat know that companies cannot be prosecuted for corruption. Corruption is a criminal offence, not a civil one, and companies can be sued only civilly.
With crimes, it is the individual who is prosecuted, because corporate entities cannot commit crimes. The crimes are committed by individuals working for them – so it is the directors or other senior officials who are prosecuted, unless the corruption takes place further down the line, in which case it is those less senior people who get it in the neck.
There are more reasons why Muscat’s proposal is to be considered as hasty rubbish, cobbled together to deflect attention from his less-than-slick behaviour in parliament over the last few days.
It helps shore up a belief ingrained in Maltese culture that the briber is just doing what he has to do, and so is not committing a crime or anything particularly wrong or bad. He is doing what is necessary for the good of his business/family/what have you. It is the public official who demands or takes the bribes who is in the wrong, because he is using his position to extort money and goods in return for favours or preferential treatment.
The reality that both the bribed and the briber are committing a serious crime, that they are both equally in the wrong in manipulating the system criminally and causing an offence against society, is completely alien in Malta. People here fully expect those who try to get government business to bribe public officials.
They don’t get that mad about it because they think it is what they might do themselves in that position. So they direct all their anger at the nameless, faceless public officials they think might have taken the bribes.
It is an unspoken fact that many Maltese do well in business in Libya because they are comfortable with the process of bribery, whereas their more corporate European and US counterparts are not – and the latter are actually barred under their own law from getting involved in anything like that.
Several Maltese businessmen actually speak openly about the bribes they have to pay to get ahead in Libya. It is seen as an entirely natural and normal part of the process.
In offering immunity to “companies” (maybe Toni Abela and Anglu Farrugia will sit him down and explain to this doctor of public policy the difference between a company and its directors) Muscat reveals that this is how he himself thinks. The businessman who bribes is doing what he has to do, but the public official who takes the bribe is corrupt.
Both are corrupt, Joseph Muscat – and in some jurisdictions, the person who proffers the bribe (especially when it is on behalf of a corporation) is seen as by far the greater criminal than the one who takes it. The United States, for example, thinks the matter so serious that it actually has extra-territorial jurisdiction over its citizens where there is bribery or attempted bribery of foreign officials.
The US citizen who bribes or attempts to bribe a public official or the equivalent anywhere in the world is subject to criminal prosecution back in his own country.
And now here comes our own Muscat, trying a little bit of horse-trading: you tell us who you bribed and we won’t prosecute you if the information you give us is enough to secure the criminal conviction of the person who you bribed. It’s so very, very Maltese – and so very, very stupid. Because how would it work, in practice?
Why would anybody in his right mind walk into Police HQ – and let us remember that this is the proper investigative authority, and not the government, despite Muscat’s attempts at misleading us – and say: “Hey, I bribed Mister X at the Ministry of Bull today. Do you want to hear about it?”
Perhaps Joseph Muscat thinks that, like Baldrick’s, his is a Cunning Plan. Whenever he or anyone who bats for his team decides that there has been corruption in the award of some tender or other, he can somehow get the police to do that horse-trading on his behalf with the suspected briber.
Ah, but here are some of the catches: they never have a name for the suspected and generally fictitious briber, as we have noticed. So unless Muscat plans to get the police to put an entire army of people under torture – I’m told water-boarding is particularly effective – he is never going to have a name.
And when he is prime minister, there is never going to be any corruption, ever. Or at least, Evarist Bartolo and the rest of them are not going to be getting any ants in their pants about who got which tender and why and how.
GHIDILHA SORRY IL-LADY
I see that the Labour Party continues to demand an apology from the government to Justyne Caruana, and that if no such apology is forthcoming, they won’t play ball on the matter of party financing. Why does this seem to me so much like the sort of petty behaviour you’d get at street level?
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
79 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Am I getting it right? So, you can first make a ‘deal’ and bribe somebody. Afterwards, you go and tell everything to Joseph Muscat. While you get to keep the money or the business deal, your opponent faces criminal procedure.
Joey Muscat should add Proposal 16: If there is a hint of corruption during his premiership, he will immediately resign, and call an election. Proposal 16 is mentioned everyday in the Labour media and suggested to Gonzi.
Joey should concentrate all his potential on orchestrating parliamentary farcical acts such as the ones we have been regaled with recently.
This is what he and his troupe excel in. He would be well advised to leave legislation in a ‘par idejn sodi’ for the common good. Can he ever open his mouth without putting his foot in it?
‘Lady’ Ha!
Daphne, prior to 1987 EFA insisted with KMB to give amnesties to the persons who would volunteer to blow the whistle on their accomplices in crimes of corruption. KMB never succumbed to EFA’s persistence and he was using more or less the same arguments which you are using now.
When EFA was elected in 1987 he gave a number of these amnesties, one which springs to mind at this time was about PAPB issuing building permits in a vast green area at Bahar-ic-Caghaq. As a result of that amnesty Lorry Sant and a number of his henchmen were taken to court. The results of those proceedings still haunt the culprits as well as militant PN supporters. I am under the impression that the Lorry Sant case was the last one of its kind, rumours had it that it was going to open a can of worms which would have seriously harmed the PN due to the direct involvement of PN MP’s.
“As a result of that amnesty Lorry Sant and a number of his henchmen were taken to court. ”
The case/s were subjected to due process but, in the event, the proceedings had to be halted on the grounds of legal prescription. The Malta Labour Party [now PL] throughout its 16 years in government had not only consistently failed to take any action regarding corruption, but actually fostered a climate that enabled corruption to flourish.
Dear Charles J Buttigieg,
Before May 1987, corruption was institutionalised – remember Fusellu? There were even cases reported of court clerks demanding money under the noses of judges and magistrates.
Labour had made it that way and thrived on it, and you cannot in any way compare the magnitude of the problem back then to today!
Fusellu? Zeppi? Institutional corruption? Auxiliary Affair.
Of course I can’t in any way compare the magnitude of the problem back then with to today’s. Can you?
When you cannot present facts and proof, you use your well-worn weapon called ‘innuendo’ and allegations which amount to a big zilch.
The PN is at fault when it looks the other way or gives the benefit of the doubt to any shady Labour dealings and conflicts of interest by their MPs who, in parliament, obstruct and complain about projects, and outside the House receive remuneration from the proprietors of same project for services rendered and including obtaining the necessary permits.
Ghidilha sorry il-lady! Oh you mean that woman shouting her guts out in parliament? She’s no lady.
Let’s see, was this lady’s house ransacked by thugs?
Was this lady’s husband framed for murder?
Was this lady’s dad given transfer after transfer for belonging to an opposing party?
Was this lady’s family made to pay Lm50 to get a colour TV?
Was this lady’s family blacklisted when applying for a telephone?
I paid LM70 for my colour TV. and I know to whom this amount went.
[Daphne – Now you see what I mean about people in Malta thinking that it’s OK to bribe. In paying that bribe, you were as wrong as the person who took it.]
Huda ma saqajk Red Nose.
Barra minn hekk,you got done twice because the going rate was LM 50.00. Sucker.
In MIntoff’s time bribery was the order of the day. You had to bribe to survive.
Hey, she’s right – Joseph Muscat is going mad. He’s trying all in his power to get Dr Gonzi down. But no chance he’s the one for Malta.
Go, Gonzi.
Wittingly, Joseph Muscat, is trying to give us the impression that he is the new Fenech Adami.
After the 1987 election Fenech Adami had given an amnesty to those who came forward and were involved in corrupt practices during the Socialist regime of the 80s.
In 1987 he was criticised by the MLP and its spokesmen. But during that time, it was the best thing Fenech Adami could do to bring to justice those who perpetrated corruption. The circumstances were different.
Joseph Muscat’s proposition is simply a smoke-screen to take the focus off his party’s internal problems. He is trying to present himself as the new Eddie Fenech Adami, ignoring completely that those were different times and circumstances. His new image of the MLP is simply the PL – but essentially nothing new. His two deputy leaders say it all.
This is why exactly why large oil and gas companies have “anti-corruption” and whistle-blower policies in place to prevent this from happening. We have to sign as an individual not for the company.
Daphne when I was treated badly at Air Malta (putting it mildly) I sued Bertu Mizzi as chairman of Air Malta,but isn’t that an obvious legal technicality? Taf xnaf li il financial compensation awarded to me did not come out from Bertie’s bank account.
[Daphne – You’re another one who doesn’t seem to know the difference between a civil suit and prosecution for a crime. When you sue a company for damages, that company is represented by its designated judicial representatives (specified directors). That would have been your position. Bribery is a crime, subject to prosecution – by the police. Companies cannot commit crimes, therefore they cannot be prosecuted and judicial representation is therefore irrelevant. The police would have to prosecute the person who actually committed the crime, and the company is not a party to the case.]
An 1886 decision of the United States Supreme Court, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad 118 U.S. 394 (1886), has been cited by various courts in the US as precedent to maintain that a corporation can be defined legally as a ‘person’.
In English law, this was matched by the decision in Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22.
In Australian law, under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), a corporation is legally a ‘person’
Laws in Malta can be amended too,merely a legal technicality.
[Daphne – Madonna, Charles, honestly. A limited liability company is a legal person, yes, but it is not A PERSON. That’s why you can sue a company only civilly (as a person) but not prosecute it (under criminal law) because companies cannot and do not commit crimes. People do.]
Maybe this will make it simpler. A company cannot be put in jail but a human person can. A company can kill you but you cannot jail the company; you can only jail the person who actually did it or those who conspired and plotted to do so, or did so through negligence.
The fact of legal personality, Charles, is not a fact in issue. The judgements that you quoted, though correct of course, do not need to be considered and this is because our statutes have long since recognised the existence of both natural and legal persons, such as, though not solely, companies or corporations.
The fact at issue, though, is whether or not companies or corporate entities can be the subject of criminal law. It has been a cornerstone of conservative (please read this as traditional) public order policy) that it is only natural persons who can form the subject of criminal acts and this is because it is only humans who possess the mental element (mens rea) required to perform an act of omission or commission (actus reus) that infringes the criminal laws.
It is therefore, according to this philosophy, only a natural person who possesses the physical capability to commit acts of a criminal nature.
This notion of limiting criminal liability to natural persons prevailed globally until only very recently, and its steadfast defenders are typically civil law jurisdictions such as ours, but even these (but not ours!) are yielding to modern developments pretty fast.
On the other hand, in common law countries, such as the UK, USA and Australia, where the judicial body is empowered by virtue of precedent to engender development of vague statute, and where after all the notion of corporate criminal liability was born, the idea spread quickly and the contagion has reached and affected typically staunch and robust civil law jurisdictions such as France and Italy.
But up until now, I have spoken only generally. The truth is that the nature of the offence itself, independently of the recalcitrance or otherwise of the state of concern to adopt the notion, determines whether a company can be held imputable to the charge of one offence or another – and this separately from its officers who may also separately and concomittantly be held liable or immune from prosecution, as the case may be.
It is inconceivable – at least to me at this stage – that a company could be held criminally responsible for wilful homicide. Conspiracy to commit is of course another kettle of fish altogether. Similarly, it is equally inconceivable that a company could ever be subjected to a punishment of personal restrictive liberty. However, the natural person can be subjected both to the same charge and punishment as in the examples given.
However, companies can be charged and found guilty of, say, reckless endangerment to the environment (Exxon Valdez case), involuntary manslaughter (Union Carbide – Bhopal india – remember this one? I was about 10 at the time and remember reading about it in The Times and I also remember the photograph of an old Indian lady blinded by the pesticide that had leaked from the offending factory), insider trading, conspiracy in white slave traffic, prostitution, drug trafficking, tax evasion, stock malfeasance and many others – all of which incidentally, the natural person can equally and in the same manner and to the same extent, be the subject of.
To say, therefore, that companies cannot and do not commit crimes is a statement that is true only in Malta and a few other countries. This is bound to change as more EU states adopt legislation in favour of corporate criminal liability and it remains, in my opinion – such as it is- only a question of time (especially post-Lisbon), therefore, until the EU institutions legislate accordingly across the board.
Oh! – lest I forget. I would like to deal with the offence of bribery as a corporate criminal offence. It is difficult to conceive of this offence as one where a corporate entity could be held criminally accountable.
The first thing to consider is the nature of the offence itself which requires limited human intervention – one, the briber, and two, the bribee – as it were.
In order to hold companies to account for this offence one would have to also furnish the type of evidence that would be required in order to substantiate a charge brought against the corporate identity. Therefore one would have to show the existence of a systemic device in place within the company that is responsible for the offence, such that a causal link could be shown to exist between the company (and not merely one of its officers) and the bribe.
One such example of a systemic device that I can think of (and quite frankly, I cannot think of another) would be a resolution of the board authorising the bribe – sheer madness!
The manner in which the offence of bribery is usually carried into fruition negates precisely this sort of openness in criminal activity. Typically the briber acts alone with out the knowledge of others, sometimes the bribee himself being kept in the dark about the precise identity of the briber.
Furthermore and perhaps more importantly, the person within a company in a position to carry out a bribe would not need the permission of the board to carry out his dirty operation, and therefore why would he refer the question to the board? Given that he needn’t do it, he probably won’t.
And so, from the very outset, I can see, as it so often happens, that one can legislate (with all the best intentions in the world) as much as one likes, but in the end it always remains a question of proof, which in the particular case of this offence, remains – in my opinion, such as it is – elusive.
The legislative measure would therefore be relegated to a regretfully growing number of cosmetic devices on the law books, which shall not serve its intended purpose.
But of course, I could be completely wrong, and the authorities may well go ahead and proceed to show me exactly how misguided I am.
@Charles J Buttigieg, .
Why were you treated badly? Just because you were made to do your job?
Sur Charlie, after the election of 1987 AIR LABOUR was slowly changed to AIR MALTA a company for all the Maltese not like the one you worked for where you had to be a Labourite to get a job.
KM = Klikka Mintoffjana.
I was treated badly because I was not allowed to do my job and this is on record at the Constitutional Court.
During the Klikka Mintoffjana period I had a chairman, board of directors and colleagues in senior and middle management who supported the PN more than you can ever imagine.
Our inboxes are jammed daily by emails from high public officals asking for hospital appointments in Mater Dei for their constituents to be pushed forward.
This at the cost of some very sick patients, including children, who are skipped over in the waiting-list because they have nobody to speak on their behalf.
Are you saying these public officials are criminals? Even if no money changes hand, it goes without saying that one favour may beget another, and that non-compliance to these emails may cost one a promotion.
Civil servants, and indeed everybody else, should discharge their duties in an impartial manner and without fear or favour. Lino Cert, if the situation is indeed as you put it, then it is your duty to ignore such requests and also to report the situation to the competent authority.
By ignoring the situation or, even worse, by bending to such pressures you are only sustaining and helping to flourish that which you condemn.
I find these neverending accusations of corruption by everyone and his uncle so boring. It’s not that there is ever any incontrovertable evidence uncovered by the accusers.
Where are the investigative journalists in this country? All one ever reads is innuendo and gossip. I am sure that corruption exists because as you said some have the cheek to boast or grumble about it – especially after a dram or two.
It is institutionalised in some countries. I know that some airports in third world countries even hold ambulance planes to ransom and don’t allow them to take off with their critically ill passengers without a bribe of several hundred dollars being given to the control tower staff.
However, in Malta I would still like to believe that the majority are honest and work hard for what they have.
There is the serious risk of the ‘cry wolf’ situation and Joe Public not noticing when tangible evidence does show up but ends up drowned in the continuous flood of ‘moral convictions’.
@DAPHNE
YOU SIMPLY HATE PL. NOW ITS DR. MUSCAT, YESTEDAY DR.SANT. DAPHNE & GONZIPN ASSOCIATES. TIME IS RUNNING FAST. WE NEED CHANGE. AND CHANGE WILL COME DEAR DAPHNE. R . SPITERI
Needed a good chuckle this morning. Is this a joke, Daphne, or just someone who doesn’t know the meaning of “stereotype” (or “caps lock”, for that matter)?
If “change” means having the country run by Joseph Muscat, Toni Abela and Anglu Farrugia, then that change is certainly not for the better. Then again, certain people would not realise that, would they?
Well, the first change we would like to see is you turning off the caps lock. Secondly, wanting change just for the sake of it is not necessarily a better path.
The alternative being the Labour Party lead by a silly amateur like Joseph Muscat is hardly what I would call a good change.
@R. Spiteri.
Change, of itself, is pointless. The quest for change must be for the better. Joseph Muscat, his two side-kicks, and the whole of his circus troupe daily demonstrate their incompetence in that regard. Truth is that PL is now beyond redemption and, unfortunately, Malta must continue to suffer because of that.
It is very sad indeed that all that PL supporters are concerned with is seeing their party in government, without ever stopping to evaluate what, if, and when it can deliver. Currently that is zilch. Joseph Muscat has not yet come up with any tangible policy. Two years down the line, he is still chipping away at redesigning the party emblem…
Dear Raymond, unfortunately time has already run out for the PL and the Doom and Gloom crowd. PL delegates had the opportunity to elect as Leader a person of character and one that can be trusted. Unfortunately for the faithful PL supporters they were let down by the delegates, who were manipulated by those entrenched at PL headquarters.
Joe Vella, was it not the ‘party faithful’ who appointed the delegates in the first place? The ‘party faithful’ have only themselves to blame for the sorry mess the PL is in…and still sinking.
Yes Raymond, you need change. Try changing your mentality for a start.
Raymond, stop shouting, you ignorant fool.
The problem is not change, Raymond, but the party and its people thinking they are capable of governing this country.
The Labour Party is certainly not fit enough to do so, especially with all these shenanigans that have been going on for years.
Is Joseph Muscat also proposing that whoever carries out the bribe and later reports it will get a refund? That would be good: you get the contract now, and a refund later.
I would not be surprised if he now tells us that besides reimbursing the vehicle registration tax, he will also be refunding any corruption money. Or maybe he plans to proceed straight to court to open a case for refunds, like the one for vehicles – including his Alfa and Sportage?
David Cameron is doing a Sant – this prat is talking about a financial ‘black hole’! He hasn’t realised that now he’s at the helm.
You couldn’t make it up in this country. The LP ( MLP) just looks like it is run by a team of complete half-wits.
The concept of rewarding a whistleblower with immunity is worth careful consideration. It makes it harder for two criminals to collude if they think that one may confess in future. The US does indeed seek prosecution of bribers abroad, but it also operates a plea bargaining system in its criminal justice system.
Consider Christie’s gaining immunity by confessing that it had secretly fixed the levels of commission with Sotheby’s for example. Or today the plea arrangement with Mr. Lee in the Galleon insider trading saga.
Yes, Mr Lee wins some immunity, but hopefully insider traders everywhere in the US are frightened enough by the possibility of the whistle being similarly blown on them one day to stop trading illegally.
Someone taking a bribe is happier to do so if they know that the briber will forever share the same compulsion for self preservation and keep the bribe a secret. Would a minister take a bribe for accepting a lower bid for an airport, for example, if they thought the briber might one day buy immunity by telling all?
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Plea bargaining exists in Malta as well not just the US, and this from 2004 onwards. Furthermore, it is not a tool which is used to incentivise the collaboration of the accused with the investigative authorities (neither here nor in the US).
Plea bargaining is merely a method by which a prosecution is expedited by virtue of the immediate admission of of guilt by the accused opf the charges brought against him, after an agreement on the punishment has been fleshed out between defence and prosecution. Sometimes the plea bargain would also see the prosecution dropping a number of charges and sometimes modifying the most serious charge into a lesser one.
A lighter sentence is given to the accused (though not always) because of early admission or as a consequence of the reduction in charges (both nuber and gravity).
Cooperation with the police doesn’t come into it and the Police would not be able to comment about the substance of a plea bargain anyway as this would lie in the discretion of the DA (in the US) and the AG here in Malta.
@ raymond spiteri, I follow Daphne’s blog regularly, as I take it you do. Daphne writes about the way things are, nothing she ever wrote instigated any hate towards anybody.
She is a LADY who has the guts to speak her mind, while you have the right to disagree with her, but I can assure you that there’s not an ounce of hate in her.
You speak of change and the assurance that that change will come. But I ask you, change from what and to what?
Daph, you ‘sound’ worried! Is it because only God knows how many friends, fellow inner-circle members and acquaintances of yours would be royally fucked should the whistleblower act or some kind of anti-corruption measures be ever introduced in this country? But seriously, what has your party ever done in 20+ years to mitigate corruption, or the perception of it at least? Could you kindly write a blog about this for once? Writing that corruption will still exist under a labour government simply won’t cut it – It would be like admitting how crooked the present government is.
[Daphne – Been reading a lot of Maltastar, have you? Right, now let me spell it out. While I could fill a large hotel with my ‘friends’ and acquaintances, I count my actual friends on the fingers of one hand. This is the case with everyone by the time they reach their 40s, but many fail to distinguish between the ones they should stick in that hotel and the ones they should be counting on the fingers of one hand. I am astonished at how many people my age describe others as friends simply because they know them quite well and spend time with them. So: I don’t give a stuff as to the prospects of acquaintances under any anti-bribery mechanism, and my friends are not in a position to be ‘royally fucked’, as you put it so nicely, because they have never done any royal fucking themselves. On the other hand, it is entirely possible to be right royally fucked just because a Labour government doesn’t like your face or your politics, even if you have done nothing wrong and committed no crime. Incidentally, I do not have fellow inner-circle members because I am not part of a circle, inner, outer or middle. Anyone who knows me will be able to tell you that this has always been my defining characteristic: I have a horror of cliques, groups, gangs or circles of any sort. The thought of moving around in a group is enough to make me feel faint. ‘Your party’ – I don’t have one. I only have a vote, which I don’t hesitate to use or to talk about. As for what successive Nationalist governments have done to ‘mitigate corruption’ since 1987, I don’t know what they did but it has certainly worked. Life was hell before 1987, and it was hell mainly because of institutionalised corruption at all levels, from the lowliest to the highest.]
No doubt the last years of the old Labour era were shady as were the last years of the Andreotti regime in Italy and the last years of this government for that matter. Too many years in government and too much power brings corruption – this is a scientific fact.
In the 80s you had to hand a brown envelope to some government official to get yourself a TV set, and likewise today, you have to corrupt your way through to get yourself a building permit, a high profile job, or win a government tender or whatever.
What’s more, corruption has been taken to another level by the PN. It is now intellectual, at a deep level, with prime time public television, and may I stress the word PUBLIC, hijacked by ultra PN fundamentalists (and hence apologists) trying to convince us all, in a subtle and very intelligent manner, how independent they are, how OK this country is and how illogical and stupid is anyone who thinks otherwise. Daphne, you don’t deny all this by chance, do you? Of course you do.
[Daphne – Of course I do. But it’s not for the reasons you think. It’s because I can think straight, rather than hysterically.]
L-Ahmar jghajjar lil tal-Blu, u tal-Blu jirreciproka – this, while their currency is being debased and they’ll soon be caused to pay through their noses for the excesses of others.
But that doesn’t really matter for it does not form part of the Lilliputian divide, and in any case the Lillies know very little about it for when they do try to find out they’re only allowed to scratch the surface, just like the Soviets before them.
Corruption in the 80s, aye? Maaaa, x’biza! Tell us about it.
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=9130
How many bottom lines can you have?
L-affarijiet mhux tghidhom biss trid imma twettaqhom.
@ raymond spiteri
Qatt ma kissirna djar tan-nies, sawwatna nies jew sparajna fuq in-nies. Ahna nirragunaw l-argument bis-sens u bhan-nies. ‘Hate’ tfisser xi haga ohra. ‘Hate’ hija bhalma jaghmel il-PL.
Ghax anke jittkellmu qishom irridu jqattaw lin-nies, Bhal Joe Mizzi, Debono Grech, Anglu Farrugia, Justyne Caruana Toni Abela etc. U tal-Maltastar? Dawk ihobbuhom hafna lil certu nies, specjalment lil Daphne u l-familja taghha.
3 words – ONLY IN MALTA
Anyone noticed the mistake today on Super One? During the clip about the power station they referred to the island of Mauritius as Mauritania, another country altogether. Incredible, but true.
No need to criticize this little twerp, Daphne, he’s self-destructing all on his own.
Apologies, Daphne. One can only self-destruct on his own. Thus, ‘all on his own’ in my comment is redundant. Shouldn’t comment after midnight.
Whilst being temporarily correct, in that companies cannot be held as yet criminally responsilbe, one ought to know that this applies solely to Malta. Indeed, in many other jurisdictions the concept of Corporate criminal liability has been introduced with success, and malta remains, regretfully, one of the few EU member states that does not have this form of legislation on its statute books.
More to the point perhaps, Malta is atavistic in this regard employing only the traditional concepts of criminal liability, and seldom properly, solely to natural persons. This is most unfortunate and there is a definite push for this philosophy to change.
Therefore, whilst not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with what Joseph Muscat has to say about the question of bribery, he will have to, perforce, introduce corporate criminal liability into the law concomittantly but separately from this legislation which he intends to propose – unless he wishes, that is to limit corporate criminal liability only to the offence of bribery, in which case he need not necessarily draft an entire act for the purpose.
This last would not, of course, be such a bad idea as corporate criminal liability is a sine qua non in any jurisdiction laying a claim to a robust financial service industry and sophisticated sufficiently to warrant it.
Seems like someone technical (with a background in law for sure) has posted a very good analysis… well done! We cannot continue with this farce in this country, black against white, red against blue.. we need some really constructive ideas, independently if they are coming from the black or white quarters.
@ IL-Lejborist, Well my friend Inspector Gadget is supposed to be Labour’s whistle blower. He was supposed to tell the Maltese people how the 1,500 votes that won the PN the last election were deceitfully acquired, but all he did was whistle.
If anyone would be screwed by any whistleblower it would be the PL, because it can’t even hold a fair election within the party. Ask Lino Spiteri or George Abela.
You also asked what the PN did in 20+ years to mitigate corruption, well that’s simple: WE GOT RID OF LABOUR.
a very objective argument and free from partisanship indeed (yeah right!).
In the case of BWSC one assumes that the whistleblower is the owner of the company Mr Joe Mizzi used to work for until he branched out on his own.
How come the PL has not investigated the tens of contracts this whistleblower’s company was awarded whilst Mr Mizzi worked there for the past 20 years or so. Is this a case of the PL not wanting to harm their whistleblower?
Re bribery, do you know what happened to the Swallow Garage bribery case involving ADT?
@Troy
Taf timlihom bix xema in-nies, lanqas int purcinell bhal sidek Gonzipn. ur stahba ghax is-siegha tieghek tasal ukoll u isiru il-kontijiet! Mhux tad-dawl ta ghax dawk ga gholjin bizzejjed ux!
Woody, diga tghallimt tehded Alla jbierek – mela issa jaghtuk it-tessera.
Issa pulcinell Gonzi – mela l-gheneb qied fil-gholi.
Ahna tas-secret society difficli li ninqabdu, dudu, ghax ghandna insurance Kanadiza; kien ghamililna frodista.
Here we go again (apologies to David Coverdale) – more threats!
Dr Joseph Muscat might wish to read this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/1420064959/sr=1-1/qid=1274201120/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books&qid=1274201120&sr=1-1
Although in many, or rather most cases, both the one giving the money and the one receiving it are equally guilty I do not agree that this is always necessarily the case.
Depending on who is instigating it, the ‘deal’ may range between bribery and extortion.
I think a good part of what was been called bribery in the 1980s is probably better described as extortion. There can be situations where people have no option but to pay up simply to get what is theirs by right.
If there is a proper legal system in place then the right thing to do would be to refuse to pay and report the matter to the police. However if that system is also corrupt there may be no other option open except to pay up.
Leo Brincat did not mention any corruption on the power station issue on Bondi +. He had all the time available to do it. So why not?
The theme was the health hazard aspect not the sleaze allegations.
@ lejborist, you ask:
‘But seriously, what has your party ever done in 20+ years to mitigate corruption, or the perception of it at least?’
Maybe the PN did nothing but the people did, because Labour was removed from government.
I reckon with “people” you mean the few hundreds who won the PN the last election, the same hundreds who magically had their MEPA permits approved a few days before the election or possibly the ones who originally did not want to vote but changed their minds, out of the blue, minutes before the voting polls were closed?
[Daphne – Yes, it’s a great shame, isn’t it, that there are so many people in this country who are prepared to cut off their noses to spite their faces. I mean, imagine being faced with a choice between Lawrence Gonzi and Alfred Sant (Alfred Sant in 2008, that is) and going to Alfred Sant. It’s scary to think that the difference between sensible people and the unthinking is of just a few hundred. And no, they weren’t ones who had MEPA permits approved. They were people like me, who take their voting responsibilities very seriously indeed, and who would never dream of inflicting Sant (or Muscat) on these islands just for the Schadenfreude of spiting others and getting to say ‘Hekk, hekk, hekk.’ You seem to have a bit of a problem there. Work it out. The best way to get ahead in life is to concentrate on getting ahead, not to work out how best to drag others down and spite them. Dragging others down is going to do nothing to better your lot.]
Perhaps, one day Daphne will wake up in a good mood and accept the fact that rational people who are capable to make an informed decision to vote labour and legitimately and intelligently rule out another 5 years of PN, do exist out there. Perhaps she will no longer see these people as aliens. Perhaps she will realise that these people might have a point or two in their favour when they criticise this government. Perhaps she will also realise that after a lifetime of PN in government, the country could use a little bit of Labour, if only to test them out. And, perhaps, one day donkeys will fly!
[Daphne – A lifetime of PN in government? Whose lifetime? Certainly not mine. Half my lifetime was spent under Labour. I went to primary school, secondary school, sixth form, worked, married and had two children – all without a single interruption in the Labour government. So I was right in suspecting that you’re still in your early 20s, hence your belief that we have suffered little more than disaster in your lifetime, primarily because you have no means of comparison and probably not even the intelligence to assess and analyse facts rationally.]
il-lejborist, it was just one person who gave the PN their electoral win- ALFRED SANT.
Jose Herrera talking about unethical behaviour and magistrates in today’s Times:
We have also experienced what to my mind are unethical tactics concocted by the government with regard to magisterial inquiries. In instances of magisterial inquiries, which could eventually embarrass the government, it has become the norm for the government to appoint ad hoc inquiries
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100519/opinion/perception-and-hard-facts
@erskinemay. where do you ordinary reside? It cannot be Malta. Joseph Muscat’s piece is only meant as PR, in other words..crap. Joseph Muscat’s party includes people who are in business. Some of them might even be in parliament for business…sod the constituent! So do you in a million years think that he is going to introduce any legislation to, as it were, ‘lift the veil’ of corruption? Keep on dreaming, my son.
First of all, I am not your son. Secondly, the question of whether or not legislation introducing the concept, limited or otherwise, of corporate criminal liability, will occur is not as dependent upon the whimsy of the political incumbent as you may imagine.
The intitiative is one which is being undertaken by EU members states individually. This is true. In other words, there is not as yet a pan-European directive or regulation in force. We have good reason to think, however, that this is only a question of time.
Yes, you’re right, you’re not my son, had you been you would have had the gumption to write under your own name. Since you use the royal we, can you enlighten me as to whom you represent, and whereyou get your certainties from.
Michael Woods – kemm ittini pjacir narak titkellem hekk b’dak it-tgheddit.
Tfakkarni fi zmien iehor, u dan mhux fil-gvern, mela kieku tkunu fil-gvern x’taghmlu biex tasal is-siegha u jsiru il-kontijiet?
Michael woods says:
‘mur stahba ghax is-siegha tieghek tasal ukoll u isiru il-kontijiet!’
Kliem tipiku Laburista per eccelenza.
Ghanzi suppost inbidlu dawn!
Gonzipn purcinell? Mela inti x’int. Tkellem bis-sens, Mike.
Talking of bribes … http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100520/local/former-chief-justice-noel-arrigo
As per OECD: Definition of Bribery:
Definded by the convention as the offering, promissing or giving of something in order to influence a public official in the execution of his official duties. Bribes can take the form of money, other pecuniary advantages such as paid holidays or use of corporate jet or non-pecuniary such as favourable publicity………..does this sound a bell Ms Daphne ? maybe a Tonio Fenech? do you know him?
Whether is a corporate offering or personal, a public official should follow the ethics code,, but on second thoughts, your of the same breed wanna be Elite breed,,, just like you, ethics and respect are non-existant
[Daphne – Learn how to spell. Then your quotes from the OECD might be more credible.]
“The United States, for example, thinks the matter so serious that it actually has extra-territorial jurisdiction over its citizens where there is bribery or attempted bribery of foreign officials.
The US citizen who bribes or attempts to bribe a public official or the equivalent anywhere in the world is subject to criminal prosecution back in his own country.”
What a poor example to chose! In recent years, America has had politicians who had previously worked as attorneys for multi-nationals. Once in office they lobbied to favour their ‘ex’ employers!