Gram jewellery owner says freezing order causing disproportionate prejudice

Gram Jewellers has filed a constitutional case against the Attorney General, complaining that a freezing order against him as part of a separate case has exposed him to additional criminal charges, as it rendered him and his other companies unable to pay VAT.

George Tabone had been arraigned on 20 February 2013 on charges of having received stolen goods. Six days later, the Attorney General had filed an urgent application before the Criminal Court asking the court to impose a freezing order on all the assets of the accused, as the office of the AG had, through an oversight, forgotten to request it upon his arraignment.

The Criminal Court had acceded to the AG's request of and ordered Tabone's the assets to be frozen under money laundering legislation. The order affected all moneys and movable property belonging to the accused and his companies. It also prohibited the accused and all of his companies from transferring, pledging or disposing of any movable or immovable property.

Tabone had challenged the freezing order but without success.

In October 2015, Tabone had been declared innocent and the Courts had cancelled all freezing orders in force against Tabone and his companies. This cancellation was to come into effect on the judgement being declared final. But the Attorney General had lodged an appeal, thereby stalling the freezing order' cancellation.

Tabone is claiming that the fact that the freezing order is in breach of his right to the enjoyment of his property.

In the application, filed this morning by lawyers Michael Sciriha and Evelyn Borg Costanzi in the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, Tabone complained that the freezing order was not limited to the alleged amount unpaid, but on all of his assets.

As a result of the freezing order, Tabone said he had found himself facing criminal proceedings for failing to pay VAT. The accused was also unable to pay several advertisers or make repayments on his commercial bank loans.

Defence lawyer Michael Sciriha argued that the court order has had an “disproportionate effect of not only depriving him of his business, but also of any money the business may have generated.”