He is quite clear to declare that any political appointee should clearly evidence, above any legal standard or definition, that no gift or other remuneration was received in order to influence any policy or executive decision that any such appointee had to take, will take or took.

That is the true intention of the legislator and presumably of the people who elected such legislator.

Being negligent, in conduct, such as highlighting suspicion of a corrupt practice, even if unfounded is detrimental, and throws a tainted impression if that official or appointee, is in fact a professional executive and even jeopardizes the reputation of an elected leader who entrusted policy or executive powers to such appointee.

So in the absence of proper conduct, such appointee is also irresponsible towards the person/s who trusted him.

The concepts of tax evasion, tax avoidance, trusteeship, nomineeship, monies management, business and politics, cost minimisiation, capital as a factor of production, export levies, enterprise subsidy, cultures, law abiding and a large number of factors may be discussed at length, self confessions or denials need not be requested but under no premise should ever a European democracy allow any trading in influence or similar concept by its parlamentarians (that includes all members) or government executives.

Moreover a salient feature that emerges in this story is the HSBC Group which quite irresponsibly has breached numerous duties as a bank in addition to its recent worldwide scandals.

HSBC is involved through Malta in three ways, it has facilitated Maltese domiciled persons to HSBC’s private banking arm in Geneve and allowed breach of its confidentiality agreement (banks are there to keep possessions safe and private),it owns some 67% of one of the largest banks in Malta and operates a call centre in Malta for its HSBC UK customers.

Is the information about any of its customers whether in Malta or elsewhere held in due diligence and utmost care, does it report any suspicion to the relevant financial intelligence units as required by Maltese, English and European law ?

Finally should media, print or otherwise, accept advertising by financial services that enable fiscal fraud or the lesser crime of tax evasion?

So the question is very simple …did the former political appointees breach trust of their appointers?

Were they subject to a trade of influence during their appointment? The bank did breach the duty of trust and confidentiality, possibly it breached a large number of duties and obligations….. the most important is that justice and clarification take their due course towards the true spirit of the law, that is the only way to regain the public trust, which in the monetary sense holds a very high value.

That trap was pure Six Hats.

It works by concept exclusion and association.

Michael Falzon & Ninu Zammit = corrupt[exclude] former PN ministers [associate] > Austin Gatt.

Three days later, here we are discussing Austin Gatt instead of Falzon and Zammit.

What one man can invent, another can discover. Hsibtuna kollha cwiec.

It is the pity that whoever is holding the reins of power at the moment seems oblivious to this.

I’m not out to win. I just cannot bear the outrageous unfairness of seeing Austin Gatt – who is not even remotely avaricious or acquisitive – put in the same category as the criminally crooked, corrupt and money-hungry John Dalli

Ok you win!

Simon Busuttil was wrong to allow himself to be led into the Labour/Malta Today/Times of Malta trap of lumping Austin Gatt with a crooked man like John Dalli. I am sure he regretted it immediately.

What he should have said is that there are no grounds to suspend Austin Gatt from the Nationalist Party and that his affairs have always been in order. There are no pending investigations against him and all investigations that did take place found no wrong-doing – and this was under a Labour government.

He should also have said that John Dalli’s case is completely different and that he doesn’t wish the Nationalist Party to be associated with him in any way or form. I believe he has already said as much somewhere along the line, so he should stick to it.

Gatt’s financial affairs were totally above board all along. He never had to “regularise his position”. The account was opened by his father in the 1960s. His father died in the early 1970s. His mother had the usufruct until she died in 2005. Between his father’s death and the time of the outcry, no money at all was deposited in the account, still less by him. All taxes were paid along the way.

I think we forget that this was a manufactured story. In 2005, when he hadn’t listed the account specifically in his declaration, his mother hadn’t yet died.

John Dalli, meanwhile, is criminally avaricious and knows no boundaries of common decency or the rules, as we saw in his disgusting behaviour while he was EU Commissioner. He cannot be trusted and his hunger for money, made in any way possible while leaving him open to approaches, means that any form of association with him is dangerous for politicians of whatever party.

Today I miss his leadership.

No wonder Ms Merkel retains a high opinion of him and seems to show only contempt in regard to Dr Muscat.

Anyway, it matters not. On a “positive note”: Jien nemmen f’Joseph ghax Joseph jemmen fiha…

”Recommendation in Dalli farmhouse case changed to ‘grant’ permit.” Times of Malta

Does anyone still have any doubt that Cesare Borgia has come to town?

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150224/local/recommendation-in-dalli-farmhouse-case-changed-to-grant-permit.557448