Approximately one year ago, Dr Oliver Pahnecke, PhD — an expert with our Information Security Institute — provided formal commentary on the disinformation being circulated about Papaya Ltd. At that time, he stated unequivocally that The Times of Malta risked acquiring the reputation of a yellow press outlet. He further observed:
“In my view, the primary issue in many cases is a sense of impunity. If there were immediate legal repercussions for generating and disseminating disinformation and fake news, I believe this problem would not be as severe.”
A year later, allegations from The Times of Malta against Papaya Ltd have resurfaced in the European information space. On this occasion, the claims are even more unfounded — a Maltese financial institution is now being criticised simply for defending its business reputation through lawful means, specifically by obtaining a court order to prevent publication.
We will, at this stage, refrain from commenting on these unfounded accusations. However, we will publish the full text of Papaya Ltd’s press release, together with its comments on the matter.
As one of Malta’s leading fintech companies, Papaya Ltd. has consistently operated with transparency, integrity, and a strong commitment to innovation. We strive to expand financial access, support responsible digital finance, and contribute to Malta’s reputation as a forward-looking hub for financial services. Over the years, we’ve worked closely with the media, regulators, and the public to foster open dialogue around the evolution of fintech — and we’ve always welcomed honest journalism as part of that conversation.
On August 8th, Papaya Ltd formally submitted a right of reply request to the Times of Malta under Article 15 of Chapter 579 of the Laws of Malta, in response to the article published on August 4th. Despite meeting the legal criteria and supplying a fact-based statement addressing inaccuracies, the request was declined by the editorial team. This refusal limits our ability to clarify facts in the same public forum where allegations were made, and raises important questions about the consistent application of legal and ethical standards in the media.
We are compelled to speak out now, not because we fear scrutiny, but because we believe in fairness. A recent article in Times of Malta paints a damaging picture of Papaya — one shaped by innuendo, omission, and selective framing. We must ask: when does journalism stop informing and start indicting?
The public deserves better than a trial by headline. Journalism serves society best when it seeks truth — not clicks.
Let’s be clear: Papaya is a fully licensed financial institution operating under strict EU regulations, including AML, KYC, and financial secrecy laws. That means we are legally prohibited from disclosing certain client-related information, even when faced with public speculation. Far from hiding — we are fulfilling our duties. The responsible thing for a regulated company is not to respond to every loaded question with a soundbite, but to follow the law and seek legal protection where warranted.
When the Times of Malta journalist Jacob Borg sent a list of questions, Papaya’s communications agency immediately responded — not with silence, but with multiple offers to meet, be interviewed, or engage in open conversation with an editorial team. All those offers were ignored.
Instead, they moved forward with a narrative that omitted context, distorted the process, and portrayed our legal action — as a “gagging order.” Let’s call this what it is: an emotionally charged label, used to create maximum impact, not maximum clarity.
The line of questioning presented by the Times of Malta appears to rely on — or would lead to the exposure of — confidential client and procedural information, which financial institutions, and the pertinent authorities are strictly prohibited from sharing under both local and EU law.
Which means that Papaya is unable to publicly comment on specific client matters — even in the face of media pressure.
This moment also invites broader reflection — not just for the media, but for all of us. Is press freedom about forcing licensed institutions to break confidentiality laws? Should banks and financial institutions feel pressured to reveal sensitive client information to avoid public shaming? If so, what does that mean for ordinary people — for readers — who expect their own data to be safe, private, and protected by law? A healthy democracy requires strong journalism. But it also requires shared respect for fairness, privacy, and legal safeguards that protect everyone.
But beyond Papaya, this moment raises deeper questions about the media landscape in Malta. When a single journalist continuously revisits the same company, using the same tone and language, while ignoring requests for dialogue — is that public interest, or personal agenda? What kind of precedent does that set for journalism in a globally connected country?
We strongly reject the implication that turning to the courts — openly, lawfully, and in line with due process — constitutes an “abuse.” Malta, like the rest of Europe, has spent centuries building a legal tradition rooted in fairness, transparency, and accountability. These mechanisms do not exist to be dismissed or undermined when inconvenient — they exist to protect the very freedoms we all value, including freedom of the press. The public absolutely has a right to know. But that right must coexist with the equally vital principles of confidentiality, legality, and procedural justice.
True press freedom thrives not in the absence of accountability, but in the presence of balance.
We support tough questions. We welcome critical coverage. But we also believe the public deserves stories that reflect multiple voices — not just one. And when a company is accused, it should have the right to be heard, not just quoted or dismissed.
Papaya will continue to operate with integrity, transparency, and respect for both the law and the media. But we also believe that journalism must hold itself to the same standards it expects from others: truth, balance, and responsibility.
We invite all journalists, readers, and institutions to join us in raising the bar — because if we don’t, trust suffers. And trust is the currency no democracy can afford to lose.
