.png)
VAT department withdraws criminal proceedings against Paul Borg Olivier
UPDATE 2 | 18.56 : Court case withdrawn by VAT department in criminal steps against PN secretary-general Paul Borg Oliver on VAT evasion.
14 October 2010, 12:00am
Karl Stagno-Navarra
Karl Stagno-Navarra
1 min read
PN secretary-general Paul Borg Olivier was to be charged in court today on 14 October, for failing to file his VAT return in time, but the case has been withdrawn by the prosecution.
It is believed the procedure has been withdrawn after Borg Olivier regularized his position.
A writ by the VAT Commissioner had asked the Commissioner of Police to file criminal proceedings against Borg Olivier on VAT evasion charges. Specifically, Borg Olivier was being charged with not having filed his VAT return within the 75-day deadline after the end of the August 2006 tax period.
The offence carries a fine of anything between €700 and €3,500, but even if convicted Borg Olivier could have requested a total or partial remission of the penalty, provided that the prosecution and the VAT Commissioner agree to such request.
A spokesman for the Finance Ministry told MaltToday that it is normal procedure to have a case in court withdrawn if the registered person complies with the provisions of the VAT legislation.
He added that during 2009, the VAT Department withdrew 1798 cases while from January to August 2010 the VAT Department withdrew 1080 cases.
In comments to MaltaToday three week ago, Borg Olivier said he had regularised his position with the VAT department. “I was not secretary-general at the time,” he said, referring to the fact that the VAT number is registered in his personal capacity as a lawyer.
Borg Olivier did not reply to MaltaToday’s questions as to whether he felt his position was untenable given that he is the subject of criminal proceedings.
Borg Olivier stressed that he had “genuinely thought [the VAT return] had been submitted."
•
Sur Ellis. Il-punt hwa wiehed. Inkesret jew ma nkisrittx il-ligi ? Jekk inkistret anki jekk giet regolarizzata l-pozizzjoni xorta hemm piena talli nkisret. Hekk jew nhux hekk ? Imma jiddependi min int. Hux hekk ?
Stephen Proudfoot •
VAT Department could do better if they spent some time checking people like Joe South and their activities , PLEASE
•
xi gmiel hux.........what a nice suggested picture with criminals .how can we have the big fish..............when FISHERMANS GO FOR SMALL FISH.........kepp it up with the funny work........exxcellent..........!!!!!!!!!!!1
•
Should not holders of public office and professionals lead by example?
•
Surely the issue is whether a criminal offence has been committed. If a criminal offence has been committed is not that the end of the matter? The fact that a person remedies what he or she has done wrong would only go towards mitigating the punishment to be imposed by the courts. Say a person steals $1000, is charged and then repays the $1000, would that mean that no crime was committed? The more I hear of this sort of nonsense the more I am convinced that Malta's legislative structure needs to be overhauled.
•
Where's the scandal ? This is standard procedure whenever any accused brings himself in line with VAT legislation. I have seen it done in the case of several of my clients and I do not see why Paul Borg Olivier should be treated differently. Let's not sensationalize non-issues.
J. Ellis.
•
If PBO reguilarized his position more than two years ago before becoming gen.secretary of gonziPN why did the department take so much time to withdraw the charges and why waste court time.
Why was it necessary for the VAT dept. to start a court case.? It only means that previous warnings were ignored by PBO which is more than an oversight.
When was the court case started.? Was it recently.? because if that is the case PBO is lying through his teeth.
P.s. Needed correction in last para.
•
If PBO reguilarized his position more than two years ago before becoming gen.secretary of gonziPN why did the department take so much time to withdraw the charges and why waste court time.
Why was it necessary for the VAT dept. to start a court case.? It only means that previous warnings were ignored by PBO which is more than an oversight.
When was the court case started.? Wasn't recently, because if that is the case PBO is lying through his teeth.
Luke Camilleri •
Now we know the origin and mission statment of Gonzipn's what "Flimkien Kollox Possibli!" ...... ghalihom u ghal taghhom
- Gaba zewg Pawlu Paprati with a litle help from his friends!
•
Ara sewwa jghidu li l-mewt u t-toilet biss igibuna kullhadd xorta !!!!! Kif ma nisthux nghamlu dawn il-hnizrijiet. Jidher li l-arroganza wasslitna fil-qieh.
•
Fascism rears its ugly head again.
All those that have issues with the VAT department should make a note of the details in PBO's case and refer to it when going to court as a base for their defense.
Oh how proud Mussolini and his Black shirts would be of GONZIPN and his BELLA COMPAGNIA.
Desiree' Attard •
This is the true meaning of 'hbieb tal-hbieb'!
Paul Sammut •
Could anyone inform the public how many times the VAT department withdrew similar court charges?
Michael Gauci •
One law for them and one law for us.
Michael Briguglio •
What a surprise!
