Two car dealers suspected of involvement in a racket linked to Japan-imported vehicles have challenged a court order that they say has practically bought their businesses to a standstill, with their assets frozen and their families in dire straits.

Alexander Spiteri, owner of Alexander Auto Sales, and Roderick and Alison Vella, operating Rokku Auto Dealer, have claimed that the investigation and blanket attachment orders issued by the Criminal Court are in violation of their fundamental rights.

Both Spiteri and the Vella couple were arrested in October 2022 on suspicion of tampering with the mileage counts of imported cars.

The attorney general obtained an investigation and attachment order in both cases, and that order was disclosed to the suspects prior to their police interrogation.

The suspects are so far deemed innocent but the orders still stand, having been renewed six months after they were issued. On account of those orders, both Spiteri and the Vellas cannot pursue their business and can no longer lead a decent life, they argue.

They have filed separate applications before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, laying out the hardships they have faced since targeted by such a “draconian” legal measure.

Spiteri says the car dealership business was his only source of income and being the sole breadwinner, his family too was suffering.

Despite having a showroom full of vehicles, he could not carry on with his business and neither did he have access to his bank funds.

With a loan to pay, daily expenses to settle and a family member with special needs to take care of, even his joint accounts were frozen, meaning that his wife was also deprived of access to her half share of the money which belonged to the community of acquests.

The Vella couple said debtors of their car business could not pay their dues, vehicles which had been sold to third parties could not be transferred while creditors could not be paid.

Vella’s car dealership had also ground to a halt, they claimed.

In both cases, the applicants had requested the Criminal Court to appoint an administrator to oversee business operations, enabling them to carry on with their work.

Interference with the applicants’ property rights was disproportionate when the property owner had to bear 'an individual and excessive burden'

That request was upheld and an administrator was appointed. However, it all proved useless since, “for some reason”, the appointee was unable to perform his allocated task.

Both Spiteri and Vella had to request the Criminal Court to authorise the withdrawal of funds from the bank so that their families could at least live a decent life.

Tal-Qasab (Alexander) auto dealer also suspected of involvement in the racket.

The court upheld that request but limited the withdrawals to wages, social benefits, pensions or allowances, and capped the amount at €698.81 monthly.

Facing such dire circumstances, the applicants are now having to rely on financial assistance from third parties.

All this, they argued, breached their rights to a fair hearing and peaceful enjoyment of their personal property, and constituted a form of punishment when they were still deemed innocent.

Citing ECHR case law, their lawyers, Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri, argued that interference with the applicants’ property rights was disproportionate when the property owner had to bear “an individual and excessive burden”.

This upset the “fair balance which should be struck between the protection of the right of property and the requirements of the general interest”.

Moreover, the subject targeted could not contest the attachment order and request its revocation or variation, which went against the principle of equality of arms.

Since the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act, in terms of which such orders were issued, granted no ordinary remedy, the applicants called on the court to declare these laws unconstitutional.

They asked the court to declare a breach of their fundamental rights, to revoke the “draconian” orders and to liquidate moral damages payable by the attorney general, the state advocate and the police commissioner as respondents in the proceedings.