robert abela

Is the President right to refuse the Binance pledge?

An analysis of the legislative and regulatory scenario concludes that given the current record and supervisory posture, the legal and governance case for refusal is robust.

Malta’s Community Chest Fund (MCCF) has declined a long-pending Binance crypto pledge – originally around € 200k in 2018 BNB and now quoted around € 39m – citing reputational and governance concerns about the provenance and disbursement method. Reporting indicates Binance wanted funds sent directly to individual patients’ wallets, bypassing MCCF’s ordinary controls; the President publicly called it a “bogus donation,” while the Prime Minister urged reconsideration. Court filings between MCCF and Binance over related disputes have recently been settled out of court, but the charity has now walked away from the offer.

The legal risk in accepting the donation turns on Malta’s Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/ Countering the Finance of Terrorism (CFT) framework and the charity’s fiduciary and data-protection duties. Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and subsidiary regulations, Malta’s Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) sets and enforces AML obligations and can receive suspicious transaction reports; while a state charity may not itself be a “subject person” like a bank or Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP), it must not facilitate laundering and would typically rely on obliged intermediaries (banks/payment providers) to conduct KYC/KYB, source-of-funds checks and ongoing monitoring. If red flags arise, accepting the funds could expose the charity to regulatory and reputational harm and, in extreme cases, criminal risk tied to receiving proceeds of crime.

Verification of the legality of sources in this context is feasible in principle but not straightforward. Binance itself has faced repeated statements from Malta’s financial regulator that it is not authorised in Malta under the Virtual Financial Assets (VFA) regime; today the MFSA is also the competent authority for crypto-asset supervision under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (EU). Because Binance is not licensed in Malta, Maltese authorities cannot rely on local prudential/AML supervision of the donor, making enhanced independent verification prudent. Technically, blockchain analytics can trace wallet histories, but “clean” on-chain flow is not a legal guarantee of legitimacy; only obliged entities’ due diligence, sanctions screening and, where necessary, law-enforcement intelligence can comfortably de-risk the funds.

Practically, the authorities with roles here are:

  • the FIAU (national AML/CFT authority) for guidance, intelligence and potential directions;
  • the MFSA (supervision of VFA/MiCA service providers, public warnings on unlicensed activity) given the donor’s status;
  • the Sanctions Monitoring Board for EU sanctions compliance if any listed persons, chains or jurisdictions are implicated;
  • the Police/Asset Recovery Bureau and Attorney General for proceeds-of-crime issues; and,
  • at sector level, the Office of the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations where charities’ governance intersects with financial integrity.

If MCCF were to reconsider the pledge, it would need a bank or regulated payment channel willing to complete full Customer Due Diligence (CDD)/ Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) and source-of-funds/wealth checks on the donor wallets, structured in a way that respects GDPR (particularly the prohibition on disclosing special-category health data without a proper legal basis), rather than direct-to-patient transfers demanded by the donor.

Given the current record and supervisory posture, the legal and governance case for refusal is robust.

The Political Reaction

The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition seem to have a common point in their reaction to the news of the President’s refusal of the ‘bogus donation’. The Prime Minister stated in a direct way that the current regulatory framework should be sufficient to clear the funds for use. He was unable to hide his evident anger at what he (almost) called “being purer than the pope” (he changed tack last minute, probably realising it was not the best pitch to make. He did argue however that other countries who criticise Malta would probably welcome Binance themselves, admittedly without giving one clear example of where this is the case – relegating this statement to spin and speculation rather than concrete fact-based evidence.

Alex Borg on the other hand was more evasive, preferring to throw responsibility on regulatory authorities. He seemed to imply (just like the PM) that 39 million was too big an amount to risk losing. He stressed that the work of regulatory authorities is crucial in this sense and should the Binance donation pass scrutiny with a clean bill of health then much use could be made of that amount. Not exactly agreeing with the president then and more in line with Abela’s take though with less determined tones.

What to make of it then? I would say that the optics count for a lot. Binance’s history is tainted with a number of cases in France and the US concerning money-laundering and money laundering for terrorist groups. Their legal issues related to money laundering have resulted in significant financial penalties and ongoing scrutiny, reflecting broader regulatory challenges in the cryptocurrency sector. This kind of history means that an analysis as that conducted above would end in a strong legal and governance case for refusal. It is indeed worrying that the two leaders are so quick to dismiss this history in a “Malta qatt ma irrifjutat qamħ” sort of way.

Peace for our time – the 20 year post

Today marks the twentieth anniversary for J’accuse the blog. Twenty years ago I clicked on the Post button for the first time (after 12 failed attempts) and the blog was up and running. That’s a lot of time that’s gone by and in the meantime writing does not feel the same. For years blogging came as a second nature as J’accuse elbowed its space in the national media. Writing daily was second nature, as normal as having breakfast.

What changed recently was the motivation. That feeling of overwhelming helplessness of an uphill battle against misinformation. There was a sudden void of real interlocutors as the public space became monopolized by the loud, the bullies and the manipulators. This was the time of the rapid increase in the rate of backsliding in the rule of law.

We had been the ones to issue the first warnings. I had yelled until I could yell no more that the politics of this nation was fated to recede in a downward spiral. Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination precipitated this state of affairs. Seven years ago I switched to writing for The Shift more often and less on this blog. However even that became frustrating. I felt like a broken record, a Cassandra on repeat doomed not to be believed and not to be heard.

And now the New World Order beckons. The world of Trumpian non-sequiturs were a spade is not a spade because Trump says it should not be. The quest for the truth has just become ever so complicated.

Which brings me to the subject of this anniversary post: Peace for our time.

Over the last few days we have heard the Trumpian pitch for “peace” in the what he calls the War in Ukraine. The mantra from the MAGA administration is now that (Ukraine President) Zelensky is only interested in prolonging the war. They say he is too arrogant to accept the terms of peace that Donald Trump has so graciously negotiated. Having humiliated Zelensky in the Oval Office Trump has turned the screw further and seems to be forcing Zelensky to the table to underwrite the “peace” only Trump can guarantee.

Some politicians, among which Malta’s Prime Minister, have no gone on record saying that “Ukraine cannot win this war”. It forms part of a wider assessment made by the PM in the context of the EU debate on rearmament following the evident signs of MAGA’s relinquishing of its defence obligations with its decades old allies. This new spin is framed in terms of peace-loving, peace-seeking propaganda with the idea being that Zelensky’s Ukraine must accept whatever deal is available so long as the guns cease to fire.

Robert Abela, Donald Trump, Viktor Orban are the modern day Neville Chamberlains desperate to sell us the idea of “Peace for our time”. Abela is keen to highglight Malta’s outdated neutrality (a Cold War concept) and his firm determination not to fork out one cent that will be spent on arming a new Europe even if that would mean that Europe is finally no longer dependent on any other force for its own security. Aside from the fact that Abela is very evidently trying to position himself against the warmonger figure of Roberta Metsola that his party has manufactured meticulously there are other issues that are being ignored.

Here are a few facts that the “Ukraine will not win this war” rabble do not want you to understand:

  1. Ukraine is not interested in “winning the war“. This is not a war in the sense that Ukraine did not choose to go to war and never intended to be struggling for survival. This was an Act of Aggression by Russia on Ukrainian soil. Worse, it is a violation of the 1994 agreement when Ukraine agreed to relenquish its share of the Soviet nuclear arsenal in return for guarantees that Russia would respect its borders – guarantees underwritten by… wait for it… the United States and the United Kingdom. The goal of Ukraine and of any self-respecting liberal democracy supporting Ukraine would not be simply to put down the guns but rather a return of the Ukraine to its borders. An unconditional return with the appropriate guarantees.
  2. Peace is not defined by Donald Trump and JD Vance. Especially the “peace” that involves arm-wrestling the victim of aggression into giving up resources to the transaction hungry wolf of a president. That is not peace. It is appeasment. Appeasment of Russia and Russia’s greed. Remember this aggression began with Russia claiming its right to safeguard its citizens who still lived in parts of the Ukraine. Could there be a more stark reminder of the situation of the Sudeten Germans at the time of Chamberlain’s peace for our time?
  3. EU security independence is no longer an option but a must. Putin’s Russia and now Trump’s America have shown that they do not care for the rules of the world order. There is no respect for the sovereignty of other nations and even less for the maintaining of alliances that have hitherto ensured security in the European region. The EU opting for rearmament is an EU that is painfully aware of Trump’s disconnection and is preparing itself to go it alone. Until Trump’s arrival Europe had lived under the safety of a shield that relied on mutual US-EU cooperation. With that shield down there is no option but to prepare for the worst. The sooner Robert Abela’s government realises that our fate is deeply intertwined with the rest of the European community the quicker will they shed the illusion that neutrality will pose a problem for the likes of Trump and Putin.

We need less Neville Chamberlains in this world. Sadly, the world of post-truth also means that there are many who are prepared to believe in “Peace for our time” promises that lead to nowhere.

That’s the truth, if I lie.

Il-bouncer ta’ Kastilja

GUEST POST: In this facebook post Christian Grima takes a good look at what it takes to get into the Auberge de Castille. The standards at the door are those set by bouncer par excellence Robert Abela. Who exactly is allowed in? (Post reproduced on akkuza.com with the author’s permission).

Jekk il-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni biex jidhol Kastilja biex ikellmek, Prim Ministru, irid jirbah l-elezzjoni generali, allura jekk nigu f’dan, inti wkoll, suppost mhux qed topera minnu, ghax sa fejn naf jien, inti ma rbaht l-ebda elezzjoni generali, ghadek. Kien rebbahhielek il-halliel, korrot tas-sena u x’aktarx qattiel jew hati li heba l-involviment tieghu jew ta’ dawk l-eqreb tieghu fl-assassinju barbaru ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia u li llum inti writt is-siggu nkallat tieghu.Joseph Muscat, Illum injot, moralment fallut u rrapportat li nvestigat lokalment kif ukoll barra minn xtutna.

Nexia BT pero’ donnhom rebhuha l-elezzjoni generali hux? Jew qed inhawwad? Ghax dawk dehlin u hergin minn hemm kienu, tant li biex ma tiskomodawhomx u biex ma jarawkomx dehlin u hergin l-ufficini taghhom kull kwarta qiskom boloh, tajtuhom ufficcju Kastilja.Illum kellu jinghalaq dak l-ufficcju kif kellu jinghalaq kull ufficju iehor taghhom bl-assi kollha taghhom iffrizati, pendenti nvestigazzjoni ta’ hasil ta’ flus. B’inkjesta ohra fuq Schembri u Hillman li waslet biex tinghalaq u jigi pprezentat il-Proces Verbal.

Melvin Theuma jidher li rebahha l-elezzjoni generali wkoll skondtok, ghax dak ukoll diehel u hiereg ghand ic-Chief of Staff tal-predecissur tieghek f’Kastilja biex jinnegozja l-mahfra presidenzjali li tah Joseph Muscat, allegatament minn wara dahrek, wara li ftiehmu l-verzjoni maqbula bejniethom li kellu jaghti lill-pulzija u lill-Qrati taghna biex jghattilhom ghemilhom.Illum miraklu li ghadu haj Melvin wara li allegatament ipprova joqtol ruhu b’idejh b’diversi daqqiet ta’ sikkina li ta lilu nniffsu, ghax ma setghax jghix bl-inkwiet u bil-pressjoni li kien qed jaghmillu l-predecissur tieghek, siehbu Keith li skondtok hxih, u r-rimanenti nies gewwa kastilja li wasslulu r-risposti u t-theddid li kwazi gennewh.

Yorgen Fenech ukoll jidher li rebah elezzjoni generali nahseb..jew qed nerga’ nitfixkel, issa?Ghax dak ukoll diehel u hiereg Kastilja kien, qisu sejjer go latrina, kemm qabel, kif ukoll wara li nqatlet Daphne Caruana Galizia, biex jiltaqa’ ma’ Keith u ma dak li qed tpoggi fis-siggu tieghu.Joseph Muscat, illum injot u rredikolat mad-dinja kollha,L-istess Yorgen Fenech li bhalissa ghaddej kumpilazzjoni mressaq b’akkuzi fost ohrajn ta’ omicidju volontarju ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia.Nahseb ahjar tiltaqa’ mieghu l-ufficcju tieghu il-Pieta’ lil Bernard Grech, Robert Abela. Jew il-Kwartieri l-Mile End.

L-ufficcju tieghek Kastilja, barra li skond kliemek ghadek ma kkwalifikajtx biex topera minnu, huwa ufficcju mishut u mcappas bid-demm b’riha taqsamlek qalbek li ma tissaportihiex.Riha ta’ flus jintnu jqattru d-demm. Habatlek sew li trid tilbes maskra.

Sakemm ma tizgurax li ssir gustizzja ma’ kulhadd Prim Ministru, mishut ha jibqalek l-ufficcju tieghek Kastilja u ghad trid tishet is-siegha u l-mument li ntrigajt li tnaddaf il-hmieg li halla warajh il-korrott dinji tas-sena, li fis-siggu mcappas tieghu, inti tpoggi ta’ kuljum, iggorrlu l-mantell

.Joseph Muscat. Illum injot. Illum fallut.

We ain’t seen nothing yet

One by one they walked out of Mile End HQ with that pathetic smile that convinces only themselves and the diehard faithfuls that all is well in the State of Labour. No comments to the assembled press though, at least not until PM Abela walked out of the glass door of the infamous Dar it-Trasparenza. Abela was, rightly, the one to face the music and give some kind of rendition of what had gone in the meeting.

Good news first. Mizzi has been voted out of the Labour Party. The man who has been unfit for purpose since at least the Panama Papers revelations is finally party-less and has been left to fend for his sorry self (while still in quarantine).

In other news, Abela is still playing to the circus that voted his party back into power notwithstanding the fact that many of the what he calls ‘allegations’ were known to them in 2017. The accolytes gathered around him for moral support included such luminaries as Edward Zammit Lewis and Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi and they were there to applaud and yell their support to make whatever happened that moment look and sound like a resounding victory.

Pressed and cornered to take a position about Joseph Muscat, Abela writhed and squirmed trying hard to build a case for not having ditched il-Kink along with the rest of the ballast. The biggest problem that Abela had was the elephant in the room : he could not say that Muscat deserved being ditched by Labour for the enormous responsibility that he has carried at the very least for standing by the Mizzi and Schembri Roadshow from the start.

He tried. He did say that had he been in Muscat’s place in 2016 he would have ditched Mizzi immediately. But Muscat’s responsibility goes further than that. It is a continuing responsibility borne by the fact that he stood square behind Mizzi and Schembri until yesterday. And here comes the elephant… that responsibility is carried by each and every member of the Labour governments who have stood square behind Muscat’s line of defences.

These are the Labour government and members who accused investigators and civil society of being traitors of the nation. They are the same members who backed Mizzi’s corrupt deals to a hilt. They are still unable to bring themselves to commit on a revision of every single contract and deal in which Mizzi was involved.

Abela today tried to get cheers for a non-achievement. His distraction biscuit today was that we would not be going to the polls any time soon (cue cheers and cries from the rent-a-crowd). The cries came from people who are just as tainted and just as mixed-up in this mess. As long as the collective responsibility for our nation’s current predicament is not borne then we continue living a lie.

As a friend of mine rightly noted earlier tonight: “Daphne Caruana Galizia would have still been alive today, had it not taken you ages to decide. Had our institutions been truly independent and allowed to function.”

That, Robert, is the reason we cannot have accolades and triumphalisms. You might convince yourself and your roadies that tonight’s vote is some big cut off moment. As far as we are concerned, we literally ain’t seen nothing yet.

photo: M. Mirabelli