Defence lawyers insist punishment is severe enough

The punishment meted out to men involved in the VAT fraud scandal was severe enough and should not be changed, defence lawyers said yesterday.

The seven men involved, who have admitted their involvement in the VAT scandal, were given suspended sentences, fines up to €700 and a perpetual general interdiction which, according to some senior legal experts, only means they cannot work with the government or ever hold public office.

The punishments caused a public outcry with many saying they were too lenient.

The seven men are contesting an appeal filed by the Attorney General's Office which is asking for the suspended jail terms to be converted into effective prison terms.

Defence lawyer Veronique Dalli said in court yesterday her client, Carmel Deguara, a VAT Department employee who is suspended, had been severely punished.

She said once the appeal was decided because of the general perpetual interdiction, he would automatically lose his job, adding that he had fully cooperated with the police from the very start of the investigations.

Lawyer Edward Gatt echoed her arguments and said the punishment imposed by the Magistrates' Court was within the parameters of the law.

Another lawyer, Edward Woods, representing taxi driver and undertaker Maurice Agius, quoted four different previous unrelated judgments with regard to the punishment. The judgments say that for the Court of Appeal to change the lower courts' judgement there had to be a punishment that was lower than the minimum or else it was a case of an erroneous judgment.

However, the Attorney General's Office is arguing that the law lays down that effective jail terms should have been handed down in each one of the cases. Lawyer Leonard Caruana, representing the Attorney General, said the crime was committed at the point where payment was arranged between the mastermind and the men.