Given that you are not particularly bright, I will spell it out. Here we are not talking about secrecy in and of itself. Here, we are talking about crime.

You have evaded replying to my comment, Secrecy for you then, is OK as long as this is done by the PN ! There is a word which defines this : HYPOCRISY !

You are a strong argument against the theory of the survival of the fittest, Mr Privitera.

Mind you, the timing of the joint secretive actions by the Prime Minister’s close friends, does lead one to that conclusion.

Wives of the prime minister and cabinet ministers can be a huge liability if they separate. These are things they hide from their wives. Otherwise they will have to give them half of this too.

Michelle Muscat is not politically exposed under the law because she “considers herself the de facto royal queen of the island”.

She is politically exposed under the law because she is married to the Prime Minister of Malta. She could sit quietly and invisibly in her home in Burmarrad and never emerge, and she would still be politically exposed under anti-money-laundering legislation.

You are right. Certainly Michelle Muscat is exposed as she considers herself the defacto royal queen of the island forgetting she was never elected and not authorised to represent us.

Anyway the question remains how would Muscat receive his cut if he and his wife cannot open offshore accounts?

He needs to have full trust in Keith Schembri. Not impossible if he doesn’t have much options. Unless he already has an offshore account or company before he became leader of the Opposition. Which I doubt.

One thing to consider is Keith Schembri may very well have needed to open the Panama company for himself because the British Virgin Islands where he already has an offshore company is due to be listed in the OECD s exchange of information starting next year.

So his plan could very well have been to replace his BVI company with the more protected Panama one. This is the best logic actually.

However I am still convinced Muscat is involved, just by the way he is defending these two crooks.

It was the PM who had to defend the Panama company and like a wind-up toy, he obliged.

If he was not involved, he would have cut them loose in order to save his political skin.

This backs up your argument in volumes.