She came. She heard. She was completely at a loss. That is the experience the EU’s chief prosecutor recounted to people’s representatives from across Europe after a visit to Malta.
Shamefully, nobody was able to tell Laura Codruţa Kövesi which entity in Malta is ultimately responsible to investigate financial crime involving EU funds.
What she told MEPs sitting on two committees that deal with civil liberties, justice, home affairs and budgetary control matters is worth repeating:
“I visited Malta, I had meetings with the national authorities and, after two days, it was very difficult for me to identify the institution that is responsible to detect the crimes because all of them said: ‘It’s not me, it’s them.’
“And when I visited them, they said: ‘It’s not us, it’s them.’ So, we still have to work on this.”
She was in Malta last October and what she told the two committees a few days ago indicates she does not seem to have changed her opinion.
It is not clear whether any of the officials Kövesi met indicated who they were referring to by “them”. It, therefore, cannot be determined whether such an entity does exist but nobody knows about it or whether the government simply did not bother to appoint one.
It is embarrassing that the smallest EU state continues to give the impression that not all is quite right in crucial structures of transparency.
After all, it had only reluctantly accepted to form part of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in mid-2018, just months after refusing to join, citing “sound technical reasons”.
When approached by Times of Malta about the matter, a spokesperson said the police investigate all information/intelligence received from domestic and foreign competent authorities and/or private citizens. The problem is: which is the domestic competent authority specifically focused on white-collar crime involving EU funds. Is there one? The answer remains elusive as it had been when the EU chief prosecutor visited in October.
The spokesperson from the office of the prime minister who spoke to Times of Malta did not help much to clarify things. True, she did speak of “operational meetings”, whatever that may mean, being held regularly between the Maltese authorities and the EU prosecutor’s office. Still, she did not specify which authorities they were.
The choice of the term “authorities”, not authority, gives credence to Kövesi’s complaint about the lack of a specific entity.
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office investigates, prosecutes and brings to judgment crimes against the financial interests of the EU. Such crimes include several types of fraud, money laundering and corruption.
Among the EU bodies and institutions that the prosecutor’s office works with is the European Court of Auditors. As it happened, the comments made by Kövesi about Malta coincided with the endorsement of George Hyzler as a member of the court of auditors by the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control.
In his introductory address, Hyzler pledged to make best use of his expertise and experience to enhance vigilance and combat fraud and corruption.
That is the sort of talk that will help Malta repair the reputational damage caused on Joseph Muscat’s watch. Of course, words must be translated into action but, to his credit, as commissioner for standards in public life,
Hyzler proved he was a watchdog with a bite.
A well-functioning and effective ad hoc entity focusing on financial crime involving EU funds will surely go a long way to prove Malta is willing to walk the talk.