PN Demands Answers: Why Did Schembri’s Asset Freeze Lapse?
PN’s Puzzle: Why Did Schembri’s Asset Freeze Lapse?
Imagine this: you’re walking down Republic Street, Malta’s bustling thoroughfare, and you notice a ‘For Sale’ sign outside a prime property. You remember hearing about the owner’s financial woes, but you also recall that a freeze on their assets was supposed to keep them from selling up. So, what gives?
That’s the conundrum the Nationalist Party (PN) is grappling with. They’re demanding answers from the government after discovering that an asset freeze order against former Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Keith Schembri, expired last year. The freeze, imposed in 2019 as part of an investigation into money laundering and corruption, was set to last until 2022. But it quietly lapsed in 2021.
From Freeze to Thaw: The Timeline
In 2019, the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) issued a freezing order against Schembri’s assets, including properties in Malta and Gozo, and bank accounts. The order was set to last for two years, renewable. But according to PN MP Jason Azzopardi, the order was not renewed, and it expired in 2021.
Schembri, who resigned from his post in 2019 amidst the corruption allegations, has maintained his innocence. He’s currently facing charges related to money laundering and corruption, but he’s yet to enter a plea. His lawyers have not responded to requests for comment on the expired asset freeze.
PN’s Pursuit of Answers
PN’s Azzopardi is leading the charge for answers. He’s questioning why the FIAU didn’t renew the freezing order and why the public wasn’t informed about its expiration. He’s also querying whether Schembri has benefited from the lapse, potentially selling off assets or transferring funds.
“This is a serious matter,” Azzopardi said. “The public deserves to know why this happened and what steps, if any, are being taken to prevent Schembri from profiting from this lapse.”
The FIAU and the Attorney General’s office have not yet responded to Hot Malta’s requests for comment. The government, meanwhile, has been tight-lipped, with a spokesperson saying only that the matter is “sub judice” and that it would be inappropriate to comment further.
