Opinion: That’s not fraud

Immediately after the Parliamentary Standards Committee endorsed the Commissioner’s report finding Clint Camilleri and Clayton Bartolo in breach of ethics, the Labour Party issued an odd public statement declaring that “no parliamentary committee found any minister guilty of fraud”.

If it’s not fraud, what do you call deceitfully taking €68,000 out of taxpayers’ pockets to hand over to your girlfriend for a consultant post with the Gozo ministry that she was unqualified for and never did? 

“The word fraud, the same as the term phantom job, was invented by Bernard Grech and is not found in any sentence in any page of the Standard Commissioner’s report,” the Labour Party statement announced.

In a bizarre twist, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard and Parliamentary Secretary Andy Ellul lodged a formal complaint with the Speaker, requesting him to investigate and “take appropriate action in relation to the PN’s attempt to misguide”.

Who is trying to misguide here? The fact that the Commissioner’s report didn’t mention the word ‘fraud’ doesn’t mean that Clint Camilleri and Clayton Bartolo didn’t commit fraud. They certainly did.

According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, their actions perfectly fit the definition of fraud: “Any activity that relies on deception in order to achieve a gain”. 

Clint Camilleri and Clayton Bartolo deceived the nation repeatedly. They appointed Clayton’s girlfriend to a post she wasn’t qualified for. They pretended she would work with the Gozo ministry knowing she wouldn’t.

They paid her the highest possible salary and the maximum allowances when they knew she didn’t deserve them. And when they were caught, they lied blatantly to the Commissioner.

Camilleri falsely claimed he knew what work Muscat had done with his ministry. She hadn’t done any.

According to the Association of Fraud Examiners, fraud becomes a crime when it is “a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment. If you lie in order to deprive a person or organisation of their money, you are committing fraud”.

Every dictionary definition of fraud fits what Clayton and Clint did and what Robert Abela still defends.

Fraud is deceit, trickery, an act of deceiving or misrepresenting. It is an intentional perversion of the truth to gain something of value, such as a lucrative consultant post for your girlfriend — or, in Abela’s case, to remain in power.

Abela repeated Labour’s mantra, accusing the PN of “being dishonest with the people about what the adoption of the report means”. 

“I take the opportunity to appeal that there should not be the standard of hypocrisy,” Abela told journalists in reference to the PN’s claims that the two ministers had been found guilty of fraud.

Hypocrisy is when you sack Clayton Bartolo while claiming that you didn’t, that you just had a discussion, and that “the decision was taken”.

Hypocrisy is when you sack Bartolo not because he defrauded the state of €68,000 for his girlfriend but because of “other new circumstances” –  that Bartolo allegedly defrauded the state of €50,000 for his girlfriend through a cycling sponsorship scam.

Robert Abela doesn’t want us to call it fraud. What, then, does he want us to call it? 

We might not know what lawyers like Abela call it. Frankly, we don’t really care. But we know one thing: it’s daylight robbery, it’s pure theft.   

We know something else, too. We know what to call those who commit theft. They’re thieves, and thieves don’t belong in cabinet. Thieves shouldn’t be running the country. They belong in court,  being prosecuted and convicted.  

If a man who stole a ladder gets 19 months in jail, then how long should two people who stole tens of thousands of euro from our pockets spend in jail? 

If stealing a handbag with a hearing aid processor lands you four years in prison, then how long should Bartolo and Camilleri linger there?

But there’s more. Those who defend thieves, who shield them from justice, bear responsibility, too.  

Abela knows exactly what Clayton Bartolo and Clint Camilleri did. He knows they defrauded the state, even though he doesn’t want us to use that word because the Standards Commissioner chose not to use it. He knows they cheated and lied. Refunding €16,000 euro won’t cut it.

Bartolo and Camilleri didn’t just betray the trust of the nation. They also attempted to mislead the Commissioner with their false testimony. They attempted to cover up their fraud — or, if Abela prefers, attempted to cover up their “intentional perversion of the truth to gain something of value”. 

Both men have been shown to be dishonest, scheming and untrustworthy. They are completely unfit to occupy any position of power.

They’re a disgrace to their office and a stain on the rest of the cabinet that tacitly approved Abela’s blinkered decision to retain them. 

Now that Bartolo has been sacked, it’s Clint Camilleri’s turn.

Abela accused the Opposition of embracing the standards of hypocrisy, and yet he ordered his two MPs on the parliamentary committee to demand the Speaker take action against the PN for calling out the two ministers fraud by its proper name.

Abela is betting that forcing Bartolo to refund the thousands of euro the two ministers stole from the public will appease the people’s rage, and the storm will finally blow over.

He thinks that a simple admonishment will suffice, that an apology from Bartolo is sufficient penance. Thanks to Abela’s loyal Speaker, Clint Camilleri was let off the hook. 

Bartolo may be gone, but the country is still lumped with Camilleri in Cabinet because Robert Abela is too weak and spineless. The country is still lumped with Robert Abela.