Comments on: There’s a real risk that popular anger will spill over

By: Le pauvre homme

Le pauvre homme — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:05:00 +0000

In reply to MarloweChris. Only if Arton's scheme was equally devious, which I'm sure it couldn't have been.

By: Gauvonsla

Gauvonsla — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:51:00 +0000

If they were risk-conscious then they shouldn’t have facilitated the scheme in the first place. Due diligence at Ann Fenech’s firm has nothing to do with it.

They’re enabling a system which was designed to let scum like Lalit Modi slip away for cash- so yes: Ann Fenech is partly responsible.

By your logic then Manfred Galdes didn’t have to resign at all. There’s your contrast. It is not fair to him- and others like him who have pulled their weight.

By: H.P. Baxxter

H.P. Baxxter — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:19:00 +0000

In reply to Godfrey Leone Ganado. You don't sound patronising. You sound privileged. Put yourself in our position.

By: Godfrey Leone Ganado

Godfrey Leone Ganado — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 21:58:00 +0000

A professional partnership does not have a board of directors like a company. If a director resigns he will still remain a shareholder if he/she is a shareholder.

Ann Fenech would have to withdraw from the partnership and stop earning her living.

Please do not forget that she is the lead professional in ship registration in Malta. She has been instrumental in turning Malta into one of the topmost countries in ship registration.

This industry is one of the lead contributors to Malta’s economic performance and she herself is considered by would be investors to be the ‘authority’ in this field.

I do not want to sound patronising, but what I say is based on my own personal experience as a professional for 40 years in the financial services and related sector.

By: MarloweChris

MarloweChris — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 21:41:00 +0000

His law firm represented Arton Capital in a case against Henley & Partners. Arton said that they should have of won the tender to design and operate the scheme. Since the Nationalist Party’s position is that passports aren’t for sale, you can see how it’s problematic.

By: H.P. Baxxter

H.P. Baxxter — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:59:00 +0000

In reply to daniel.

I EXPECT HER TO ***** CHOOSE, LIKE I’VE HAD TO DO ALL MY ***** LIFE, LIKE THE REST OF US HAVE TO DO.

POLITICS OR PASSPORTS. BUT NOT BOTH.

ANN FENECH CAN KISS MY FINANCIALLY INSECURE ARSE.

By: Raphael Dingli

Raphael Dingli — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:34:00 +0000

In reply to daniel. By being part of the firm she is involved. No matter what she states.

By: daniel

daniel — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:34:00 +0000

In reply to Daphne Caruana Galizia. Ann Fenech is part of a big firm that chose to sell Maltese citizenship despite her objection. She has stated that she is not involved in the activity in any way. I do not see what else Baxxter, or anyone else, should expect of her.

By: Daphne Caruana Galizia

Daphne Caruana Galizia — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:53:00 +0000

In reply to daniel.

“The IIP” – Jesus. Even the way you all hoover up the euphemism to cover up what it really is. That’s what the government wants you to do and you run along and do it.

IT’S THE SALE OF MALTESE CITIZENSHIP, NOT “THE IIP”.

By: daniel

daniel — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:50:00 +0000

In reply to H.P. Baxxter.

Ann Fenech has declared publicly that:

(1) she was against the introduction of the IIP in the firm she forms part of;
(2) she was outvoted by the board;
(3) she does not carry it out herself; and
(4) nor does she participate in any of the profits generated by this activity.

What more could you possibly want?