Gram Jewellers owner files constitutional application to lift freezing order on all assets
The owner of Gram Jewellers has filed a constitutional application against the Attorney General, complaining that a freezing order issued following a previous court case is affecting him and all his companies as he is not able to pay VAT and thus facing criminal proceedings.
Back on 26 February of 2013, George Tabone was arraigned before the court of Magistrates accused of receiving stolen goods. Six days later, on 26 February, the Attorney General filed an urgent application before the Criminal Court stating that his office had, through an oversight, forgotten to request that a freezing order is placed on all the assets of the accused.
On 1 March, the Criminal Court acceded to the request of the Attorney General and ordered the freezing in the hands of third parties. This included all the money and other movable property due to, pertaining or belonging to the accused. The order also prohibited the accused and all of his companies from transferring, pledging or disposing of any movable or immovable property.
Tabone challenged the freezing order but his request was not approved.
In October of 2015, a court had found Mr Tabone not guilty of any wrongdoing and the Court of Magistrates cancelled all and any orders taken against Mr Tabone and his companies. The cancellation was to come into effect on its judgement becoming final. However, the Attorney General lodged an appeal from this judgement thereby stalling the cancellation of the freezing order.
In the court application, Mr Tabone complained that the freezing order is not limited to the amount which he allegedly benefitted from through the commission of the crime.
He is arguing that because of the freezing order, he has found himself in a situation where criminal proceedings were instituted against him as he failed to pay VAT on stocks which he was prohibited to sell, and therefore could not collect VAT from consumers.
The accused also ended up indebted to several advertisers, and is not able to make payments to the bank on his business loans.
Defence lawyer Michael Sciriha argued that the court order has had a “disproportionate effect of not only depriving him of his business, but also of any money the business may have generated.”
Mr Tabone is claiming that the freezing order is in breach of his right to the enjoyment of his property.
In October of 2015, a court had found Mr Tabone not guilty of any wrongdoing and the Court of Magistrates cancelled all and any orders taken against Mr Tabone and his companies.