A few days ago honest taxpayers learned of a government decision granting an amnesty to income tax defaulters. Now, a Magistrates' Court has deemed it fit to hand down suspended prison sentences to seven people who have pleaded guilty in a VAT scam. The leniency shown by the court has shocked the country, more so when the seriousness of the offences have been condemned in no uncertain manner by the Prime Minister.
The Times argued yesterday that tax amnesties may not necessarily be immoral but it insisted the government had to justify itself in taking such action. That has still to happen.
What happened in court on Wednesday, when the much-publicised VAT scam cases started being heard, can only further infuriate law-abiding citizens who, notwithstanding the financial burdens they face, make it a point to pay their dues promptly.
What an anti-climax! After all the hype - true, most of it by the media but for good reason, too - and the tough talk by leading politicians, notably Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Finance Minister Tonio Fenech, a court has handed down sentences that, in the opinion of many, do not match the seriousness of the crime.
The message this wrongly conveys is either that the crimes these people were charged with are not considered that serious by the courts or, worse, that crime does indeed pay. This is unacceptable, for if this were true, it would mean the collapse of one of the basic tenets of a democratic and civil society: the rule of law.
Considering the state's right to collect taxes and the citizens' duty to pay them, fiscal rectitude cannot be taken lightly, especially in the case of such a small country as Malta where tax revenue constitutes such an important portion of total government revenue. Non-payment of tax, or, worse, tax fraud, ought therefore to be considered "a very serious matter" in the sense of the term as used by the Court of Criminal Appeal in a judgment given last June in a case involving, among other things, infringement of the Immigration Act. In that case, two men had been jailed but they appealed, arguing that in similar cases suspended sentences had been handed down.
The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, agreed that the inferior courts had handed down suspended prison sentences in similar cases. But it added: "This court, however, is of the view that such sentences cannot possibly serve as an effective deterrent against attempts to gain access to Malta and/or to the European Union legally. This court is of the view that, as a general rule, such cases should be met with a prison sentence with immediate effect and that, always as a general rule, anything short of an immediate prison sentence amounts to taking a very myopic view of the whole issue of border security".
The Chief Justice also said: "The inferior courts should resist the temptation to deal lightly with such cases simply because the accused pleads guilty upon arraignment..."
The message by the country's top judge is crystal clear: There are crimes that require a strong deterrent measure, which could consist of either crippling fines or imprisonment. There may be exceptions but these should not become the rule.
The prosecution ought to appeal the judgments delivered on Wednesday forthwith and ask for the other cases to be put off pending a final ruling by the Court of Appeal.