Dr. Marc Sant, the lawyer of Vincent Muscat, known as il-Koħħu, gave an interview to Christian Peregin of Lovin Malta. In this interview, Dr. Marc Sant stated that his client, il-Koħħu, is ready to reveal more about the heist on the HSBC Bank in 2010. Marc Sant is on record to have stated to Peregin that he “did not exclude other legal moves, including plea bargains, to reveal the information but insisted that nobody gives anything for nothing in return”. The phrase that “nobody gives anything for nothing in return” leaves much to be desired. For sure, such a phrase does not show any sign of repentance from his client.
When Marc Sant was asked by Peregin if one can believe his client, including the allegations of the involvement of a government minister, Sant said his client has no reason to lie because if he were to be caught in a lie, his pardon would be revoked. There is no doubt that Vincent Muscat should have a genuine interest to say the truth. But the problem here rests on which facts Muscat can actually reveal, in particular, the involvement of politicians in crime.
The question that needs to be asked is what does Vincent Muscat actually know which is first-hand evidence and not “detto del detto” or what he has been told by his accomplices. From his testimonies so far, it appears that he does not have direct information about the involvement of politicians, including a present minister, in the heist against the HSBC. What he has is information that he got from third parties. So much so, he did not know where a minister’s office was. The information that he has about the involvement of politicians in the HSBC heist does seem to be first-hand information. A plea bargain should be given to the person or persons who have first-hand information.
I am stating this because, during the compilation of evidence against the Degiorgio brothers held on Wednesday, 21st April, Vincent Muscat was cross-examined by the defence lawyer of the Degiorgio’s, Dr. William Cuschieri. In the cross-examination, it came out that Muscat has no direct knowledge of the facts. What he has is second-hand information.
In fact, this can be also corroborated by the testimony that Vincent Muscat il-Koħħu gave at the magisterial inquiry led by Dr. Neville Camilleri. The magistrate, now judge, had brought this fact to the attention of Muscat, and explicitly told Muscat that he needs to differentiate from what he knew as a fact from hearsay. What one is told does not tantamount to truth!
Therefore, in this case, who are those who have had a direct link with politicians? Muscat or the Degiorgio brothers or none of them? The only direct knowledge Muscat has is that of his accomplices. Were the politicians in question his direct accomplices?
Perhaps, another murder that needs to be further investigated is the assassination of the Tyson butcher. Who commissioned this murder? Is information about this murder going to be part of a plea bargain?