What a difference a year makes.

Last year, after a judge decreed that Vitals and Steward engaged in fraud, and slammed government representatives as inept and irresponsible, Labour’s mantra was that the judge did not mention corruption.

Today, no one has the nerve to push that line.

Magistrate Gabriella Vella has furnished us with facts that previously eluded other investigators. Individuals maintain their own innocence but, so far, no one has dared deny there was a Ponzi scheme.

The evidence gathered points to festering corruption: a heist worth hundreds of millions with accomplices, if not a mastermind, on the inside.

What’s left is determining the identity of the criminals, the useful idiots and, perhaps, the innocent who may have been caught in the wide net the magistrate was obliged to cast.

The fetid stench cannot be waved away. So the trolls blame it on someone else. They accuse the magistrate herself of corruption – of targeting the innocent and having a partisan agenda.

Last year, when the opposition said the robbery amounted to €400 million, Labour apologists were quick to pooh-pooh that the true figure was closer to €150 million – as though that is small change.

Now, the trolls are scandalised that the inquiry cost €11 million, implying the magistrate spent the money like a drunken sailor.

But her report shows why the inquiry took so long and cost so much. At every turn – just like the auditor general before her – she found scant cooperation from state institutions and personnel.

In keeping with the pattern long established with the hospitals deal, the magistrate found that key documents had a way of going missing. It is a degeneracy in the basic functions of the state that makes you wonder if the Maltese state even exists.

Last year, faced with public outrage over the fraudulent hospitals deal, the government front bench tried plaintively to claim that they were victims, too. A year later, they’re still claiming they’re victims – but, this time, of a shadowy “establishment” that wants to usurp power.

In fact, if there is a shadowy figure, it is that of Keith Schembri’s friend, Shaukat Ali, who pocketed Malta’s millions the moment the government forked it out. Ali has a Maltese passport and residency but, strangely, about him there is no official record to be found. It takes an “establishment” to engineer that.

The Labour machine’s message seeks to deflect attention from the real crime and incites its supporters against the judiciary. It is depraved but it is also clever.

A scandal cannot be denied; so a scandal about the magistrate is concocted. A hidden conspiracy to defraud ordinary people cannot be denied; so an imaginary conspiracy to usurp political power is conjured up.

In court, each word uttered is a burden to be carried throughout the case. A lie is a crime- Ranier Fsadni

The fact that ordinary, vulnerable people have been the most prominent victims cannot be denied. So they’re told they are indeed victims – but of a shadowy political establishment, not of shadowy money launderers.

At the same time, little is said about the details of the inquiry report. So flexibility is retained about what to say at a later time, depending on how the court cases go.

Despite the well-oiled machine, however, there is one snag. What happens next will be in court, under oath, and that changes the dynamic of the saga.

In court, each word uttered is a burden to be carried throughout the case. A lie is a crime. To say one thing is to give up being able to say something else later.

Inconsistencies can be pounced on and explanations demanded. And if two defendants give different versions of the same event, one of the two will be in trouble.

Joseph Muscat, Konrad Mizzi and Schembri have never faced these conditions. This time they will – if the prosecutors do their job.

Mizzi will not be able to get away – as he’s done with reporters – with refusing to answer a question because he claims he already answered it, when he patently did not.

He will not be able to filibuster by reading out an interminable statement and entering a shouting match with his questioners – as he did with the Parliamentary Accounts Committee.

Schembri will not be able to remain silent without consequence. He can’t avoid court the way he avoided meeting the auditor general. He will have to explain why the e-mail exchanges show him deeply involved in the hospitals deal, when he previously said he was not.

As for Muscat, he will have to clear up why he’s said very different things to different audiences. In 2021, he testified before Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale that he was “surprised” at the mention of €100 million being owed to Steward Health Care if the hospitals deal were to be rescinded.

But, last year, he said, in public, that cabinet had had all the documents. He’s never been asked to explain the discrepancy. He should be.

His answer will have consequences. If he lied under oath, that’s obvious trouble. If he lied to the public, that damages his credibility and leaves Mizzi hanging out to dry – since Mizzi insists that he promised the €100 million payout with cabinet’s knowledge. If Mizzi is left taking the rap alone, there’s no guessing what he might do.

Such questioning is within the reach of an honest, competent prosecutor. We’re about to find out if we have one.