Parliament on Monday greenlighted the second reading of the government's bill to reduce asset freezing for people accused of financial crime.

The bill made it through the second reading with 42 votes in favour and 34 against. Government MPs voted in favour while Opposition MPs voted against the law that was proposed just three weeks ago.

If approved upon the third reading, the new law would proportionalise the assets frozen by the court with the financial crime someone is being investigated for or accused of.

Currently, someone accused of a financial crime can have most of their property seized by the court.

The government wants to limit the amount of assets frozen to the amount suspected to have been defrauded.

Justice Minister Jonathan Attard announced the bill in the last week of November, arguing the government acknowledged that criminal law was punitive but could not turn into an injustice itself.

But the Opposition is questioning why the law is being fast-tracked through parliament days before Christmas, insisting it is designed to protect powerful people who are accused of corruption.

The bill will now go to the committee stage, where it will be debated by the committee for the consideration of bills. After that, it is expected to be approved into law on the third reading.

'A Christmas gift'

When the law started being debated in parliament last week, Attard said if approved, it would strike a fair balance for everyone as "fundamental rights make no distinction".

But PN MPs argued that while a few elements of the bill are laudable, it appears the bill was designed to help the powerful.

Karol Aquilina said it seemed like it was being given as a Christmas gift to someone. He would not say to whom but said everyone knew who he was referring to.

It appears he was referring to former prime minister Joseph Muscat. Speculation has been mounting that Muscat could face court in connection with the "fraudulent" hospitals' deal.

But Attard denied the government had ulterior motives for fast-tracking the bill, telling Times of Malta the accusation was "baseless" and "ridiculous".

He insisted that the legislation was not aimed at anyone and had been given priority after the courts pointed out several times that the current law threatened fundamental rights.

In a reaction, Muscat said he did not even know what the bill was about.