George Tabone. Photo: FacebookA jeweller has opened a constitutional case against the Attorney General, complaining that he is facing criminal proceedings because an order freezing his assets prevented him from paying VAT.
Back in March 1, 2013, a court had ordered the freezing of all assets belonging to George Tabone and his companies Gram Collections Ltd, Gram Jewellers Ltd and Gram Holdings Ltd.
Mr Tabone had been accused the previous week of handling stolen property, after allegedly buying €350,000 worth of stolen jewellery.
The decision was taken after the Attorney General filed an urgent application before the Criminal Court stating that his office had, through an oversight, forgotten to request a freezing order.
This encapsulated all the moneys and other movable property due, 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.
Mr Tabone had challenged the order but was unsuccessful.
He was subsequently aquitted of all charges in October 2015, with the court cancelling all orders against Mr Tabone and his companies. However, the Attorney General had lodged an appeal, stalling the cancellation of the order.
In his Constitutional application, Mr Tabone complained that the order was not limited to the amount which he had allegedly benefitted from through the alleged crime.
He argued that, as a result of the order, he had found himself in a situation where criminal proceedings were instituted against him because he had failed to pay VAT on stocks which were prohibited from being sold, and which prevented him from collecting VAT from customers.
As a result he owed money to several advertisers, and was also unable to make payments to pay his business loans.
Defence lawyer Michael Sciriha argued that the order had the disproportionate effect of not only depriving him of his business, but also of any money the business might have generated.