Compensation given to owners after hire car was seized by police

Anthony Grech

Mar 13th 2010, 10:43

@Joe Cauchi you are absolutely correct about the amazing rate of return here. You might be interested to know that this is one of the reasons that court cases drag on for so many years. If one is owed a certain ammount of money, tie it up in court for 12 years and you effectively double your money. Think about it, at 8% interest yearly, you would have top be a fool to settle anything here. Sit back, drag your feet and let the cash roll in. As for the idea that this bloke made 15,000 per year per car, would mean that he had one hell of an income no? I would love to see his tax returns for the past years, I would bet money that not a single car of his had that kind of profit.

Emanuel Schembri

Mar 13th 2010, 09:41

I wonder! Does the amount declared to the Court by the company for the loss of use of a vehicle in terms of rent correspond to the amount of income derived from the renting of vehicles declared by the renter in his income tax return? In the case of renting companies the same holds for each and every vehicle the company owns for renting purposes.
I wonder! Will the Tax Compliance Unit or the Commissioner of Inland Revenue take cognizance of this case, and investigate car renters' declared incomes?
I guess not. Your guess??

Y gellel

Mar 12th 2010, 10:12

@ those who s saying that 93000 euro is a lot of money > maybe we should understand that the hassel that goes with this situation >court > lawyers> Bad name> sleepless nights > I t s all for something the company didt comit ,

M.Sammut

Mar 12th 2010, 10:09

@ J.Pace - How could Mr.Formosa be found not guilty when he was allegedly caught transporting the contraband cigarettes?? If you've read the full article .. the sum of a yearly income of the hired van is 17,000 though they've decided to pay the garage for 10 months instead of 12. I think that's fair.

And Regarding the sum of the van which is 3,000 euros I think it is not a ridiculously large sum when considering it is only Lm1,287.00. You don't even buy an 18-year old Toyota Starlet with that sum!!

Mr.Formosa should have found a better way to make money instead of renting a van and break the law. JUSTICE IS NOW DONE.. SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE YEARS AGO!

T Agius

Mar 11th 2010, 21:04

If he isnt found guilty, then he would have to sue the police force and claim the 93000 Euros on the police force, ie. the goverment.

M. Avellino

Mar 11th 2010, 18:30

I wonder if the €93000 are going to be paid by 1 euro coins or €500 notes!!!

Franco Farrugia

Mar 11th 2010, 17:31

I apologise for having misread the last sentence of the report and I take back what I said earlier on. It is indeed a sigh of relief to note that it won't be the taxpayer forking out this money.

c.camilleri

Mar 11th 2010, 17:31

I would like to see the income tax return of these carage owners. Earning 15.000 euros a yr on each car is a lot of money.

marthese mussett

Mar 11th 2010, 17:14

How is he going to pay that ?And what if he s found not guilty?If he' s found guilty,is it his fault that the case took six years?

J Cassar

Mar 11th 2010, 17:12

If the accused is going to pay 93000 euros - which represent the service for the car - does the company receiving these hefty amounts actually pay VAT and Tax on the amount?

J. Pace

Mar 11th 2010, 16:52

Thats a great ROI.

What if now Mr. Formosa is not found guilty? And €15,000 per year, means that if the car is hired for all the days of the year (which is impossible) it is hired for 41.09 Euros a day. I don't know the maltese rates, but it seems to be double the normal rates in Europe.

Franco Farrugia

Mar 11th 2010, 16:52

93,000euros????? And who pays for this? The taxpayer, surely. Will there not be a serious investigation to see what added value there was to seize this car? This is disgusting! And it is equally disgusting to have an investigation carrying on for six years! Shameful! No wonder we are in these dire straits in this country!

Mike Farrugia

Mar 11th 2010, 16:35

This is really unfair.
Why should he pay for something that was beyond his control? The police should have released the car once the evidence was documented. Or perhaps the case should have been heard years ago.

Joseph Cauchi

Mar 11th 2010, 15:27

Don’t you think, the compensation is excessive, when compared to the initial investment of the car in question?

To get a return of Euro 93,000 on an investment of Euro 10,000 for a period of 5 or 6 years is quite remarkable!

I must be in the wrong business, perhaps!

JC.

N.Formosa

Mar 11th 2010, 14:18

A investigation on a car taking more than 6 years! Priceless!!!!

Ramon Casha

Mar 11th 2010, 13:45

I consider this a grave miscarriage of justice.

The magistrate should have ordered the POLICE to pay this amount, not Formosa. SIX YEARS to investigate a simple matter of transporting contraband cigarettes is excessive.

Since the original investigation against Mr. Formosa has not been concluded, Mr. Formosa must be treated as innocent until and unless found guilty. With this verdict, the court has not only punished a man for being accused of a crime, but also forced him to pay for the tardiness of the police's investigation.

Peter Korsten

Mar 11th 2010, 13:44

That's a lot of money for a Toyota.