Confusion continues to surround the legal status of seven men convicted of defrauding the VAT department, with even notaries unable to agree on the effect of a a court order that they be subjected to 'general perpetual interdiction'.
The term 'general interdiction' is used in both criminal and civil law, but its definition is not the same.
In the civil court it is generally applied to people with mental health problems whose status is reduced to that of a minor.
This means they lose their capacity to sign contracts, buy or sell property and obtain a job with the public service.
But in the criminal court, which applies to the VAT fraud case, it merely prevents them from holding public office or being employed by the public service.
Even though people with a criminal interdiction are technically not prevented from signing contracts, notaries who spoke to The Sunday Times differed on whether they would take on such a client.
"If I know someone has an interdiction I would stop there unless I get specific authorisation from the courts to let him sign a contract," notary Charlene Vella said.
The president of the Notarial Council, Roland Wadge, said there should be a distinction between civil and criminal interdiction. He would allow someone to sign a contract if their interdiction was ordered by the criminal court.
Other notaries, some of whom preferred not to be named, said there was an anomaly in the law, and although these cases were not common, this needed to be addressed immediately.
This view was supported by the Justice Ministry, which said last Wednesday that the law must be reviewed.
Even notary Victor Bisazza, who has over 40 years experience, was unsure as to what this aspect of the sentence in the VAT department case actually meant.
"There are a lot of unclear things in the law. This is one of them," he said.
He also explained that notaries were generally not informed of interdictions handed down by the criminal court, which meant clients could choose to remain silent.
Notary Anthony Abela, on the other hand, said that when notaries took on a client they researched their history to check for such issues. If he were to find out that a client had been interdicted for whatever reason, he would not let them sign a contract.
Meanwhile, notary John Gambin said he understood the term 'general interdiction' to mean that the person practically ceased to exist civilly, so he would not allow such a person to sign a contract. He argued that there was nothing in the law that said otherwise.
"If the court wants it to be specific or limited in any way, it has to say so. Otherwise I would take it to mean everything," he said.
The people who have so far admitted their involvement in the VAT scam also received suspended sentences and fines, the highest of which was €700.
But the case has infuriated taxpayers who believe that the 32 people involved in the scam, including VAT department employees and businessmen, should not be allowed to sign contracts.
However, defence lawyer Joseph Giglio, who appeared for three of the men who admitted to their involvement, said that some businessmen in "desperately vulnerable" positions were "poached" by VAT employees when they owed exorbitant fines. He said they were therefore taken advantage of, so it was not fair for people to call for their blood without knowing all the facts.
cperegin@timesofmalta.com