KPMG were, if I recall correctly, heavily involved in the application for licensing. Indeed many of the staff (including the Risk Manager leaving the bank at night as well as the MLRO/Head of Legal/a Director) are or were ex-KPMG.

It’s wider than that. For example, references to Keith Schembri taking a “personal interest” in the licensing of the bank (one of the most interesting and telling parts of the whole saga) such as here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.timesofmalta.com/mobile/articles/view/20170507/local/suspicion-of-money-laundering.647224

are now gone.

Crossed lines. The cached version of the Times article shows that that article was still online up to 9th September. timesofmalta.com has since redirected that URL to the recent article saying that the FIAU has concluded that Pilatus Bank’s shortcomings have been rectified.

Why now? Indeed, why at all?

Reporting that the shortcomings no longer exist means practically nothing for the past. What the FIAU is saying is that the compliance procedures and internal control procedures have been updated to prevent a possible repetition in the future.

Any suspicious transactions that happened before will remain suspicious irrespective of what the FIAU states.

You can only rectify a suspicious transaction for which the Inspectors would have seen high value circumstantial evidence by replacing it with backdated documentation.

When, as auditors, we report shortcomings, we would have discussed the shortcomings with management and only insist on reporting when we are convinced in what we are reporting on.

In this particular case, despite having the time to prove ‘innocence’, the bank failed to do so.
Why? I ask.
The only plausible reason is that the bank would have needed ample time to replace documents while making sure that all previous audit trails had been ring fenced or lost.

There are surely a lot of explanations that are needed to exculpate oneself in this issue and the more the players try, the more they will shoot themselves in their feet.

KPMG is a very reputable firm and from what I read in the Pilatus Bank Annual Report for 2016, just published, it seems that they will not be renewing their appointment.

Directors’ Report under the heading Auditors (page v):

“The Bank and the external auditors are presently re-assessing the appointment of the statutory auditors for 2017, which are to be proposed at the next Annual General Meeting”.

You’re losing me. The dubious report is not the attachment to that article (that is the original one by the FIAU under Galdes) but this one: http://inewsmalta.com/article.php?ID1=53014 that everyone with half a brain ignored because regulators such as the FIAU do not suddenly change their mind in that fashion. Worse when it happens after a high-profile departure of a head and his replacement with a crony.

https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwebcache.googleusercontent.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcache%3AUziRsyumKQcJ%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesofmalta.com%2Farticles%2Fview%2F20170423%2Flocal%2Fserious-failures-found-at-pilatus-bank.645929%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus%26client%3Dfirefox-b%3A6hM_ECBjj-niqy6x1336cZdAFn4&cuid=3460751

Weren’t Pilatus Bank’s auditors KPMG? I though that that was a reputable firm.

Fans of Delia may not like Said, but at least many will rally behind him and, perhaps reluctantly, give the PN their full support. The converse will not happen if Delia is elected.

The Nationalist Party will be split in two and Muscat & Co’s abuses will be worse than Mintoff’s.