Adrian Deliar lies again

He’s saying here that he “never benefited” from the “illicit use” of the London flats. Yet I never accused him of living off immoral earnings, which is the crime of living off the takings from the prostitution of others. I did reveal, however, that he set up an offshore account at Barclays International in Jersey and used it to launder money from his clients’ prostitution racket, on their behalf.

Did he benefit financially from this? Of course he did. Adrian Delia may be a fraud but he is not actually insane or pig-ignorant. He would not have done something like that, with all the grave risks it entails, for nothing. Maybe he had a few gambling debts at the time that needed to be paid. Or maybe he was just greedy.

But using Jesuitical argumentation about whether he benefited directly or indirectly from the prostitution racket is neither here nor there. To claim that he did not get anything out of it is to open himself up to the worse accusation that he is crazy.

And this is just a side-note for his future use: only ill-bred men from deprived social backgrounds, who despite their money and their marriages and their clothes and their fake image have never bothered to learn the basic rules of good conduct and civilised manners, would refer to a woman – more so when he is communicating from his position – as “Caruana Galizia”. I can’t stand bad manners and boorishness in a man. I consider them to be worse crimes than laundering money for a prostitution racket.