Christian Borg and his car-hire companies on Tuesday categorically denied  allegations made against them by a group of customers last month and said this was all part of “an orchestrated mud-slinging campaign” against them. 

Princess Holdings Ltd, No Deposit Cars Malta Ltd, and their directors Christian Borg and Joseph Camenzuli, filed a counter-protest in court on Tuesday morning, rebutting all claims made by the customers.

Some 26 clients had filed a judicial protest calling for a police investigation into alleged tax evasion and fraud by the companies from which they had bought their vehicles, also seeking to rescind the relative hire-purchase agreements.

The protesting parties claimed that Borg and his businesses were involved in a criminal conspiracy whereby customers were forced or induced to pay hundreds of euro in fake fines through “fraud and lies.”

They also claimed that the company would issue 1 cent receipts against payments amounting to hundreds of euro, thus implying that Borg and the company were defrauding the state.

Others said that they made monthly payments for over three years but never saw the car which they were paying for.

But Borg and Camenzuli, as directors of the two companies have now hit back at those allegations, saying they were “both factually and legally unfounded,” based on “generic” terms lacking precise information.

The judicial protest, they said, made reference to “several” customers who were allegedly “forced or induced” to pay fake fines running into hundreds of euro, without specifying which customers or fines.

Nor did the protesting parties produce evidence in support of their claims.

On the contrary, Borg and his associates said they were producing a sizeable list of fines issued by LESA in respect of one of the customers who had signed the judicial protest.

That list of contraventions, covering the period between June 1, 2021 and February 13, 2023, amounted to €2,388.88.

The car company, they said, had to shoulder those fines because the relative vehicle was still licensed in its name although in possession of the protesting party who held it under title of “lease to buy.”

And that was how it remained until the purchase price was settled in full.

Tracking devices attached to cars

The customers had also targeted other alleged illegalities in the contracts including an obligation for them to accept that vehicles bought or rented from Borg or his companies would be fitted with a tracking device and under 24-hour surveillance.

Borg countered that the protesting parties’ claims were contradictory since on the one hand they spoke of a contractual clause about data tracking devices, and on the other hand they claimed that such devices had been installed behind their backs.

Moreover, Borg’s lawyers pointed out that such contracts were similar to others drawn up by “tens” of other car companies in a similar context.

Whilst rebutting all allegations as totally false, both directors and companies said that this was “nothing but an attempt by the protesting parties to try to escape from their contractual responsibilities.”

In fact, the companies had obtained an executive title against a number of those customers who had signed the judicial protest.

One of those parties had even directly approached the company, dissociating himself from the protest which had been filed in court, explaining that his name had been included among the list of customers without his personal consent.

It was truly shameful for those customers to allow themselves to be drawn into this “orchestrated mud-slinging campaign,” Borg and his companies countered.

Whilst categorically denying all allegations, they held the protesting parties responsible for making a false report as well as for damages for defamation on a personal and commercial level.

They also reserved the right to take any further legal action accordingly.

Lawyers Giannella de Marco and Charles Mercieca signed the counter-protest.