Madeleines parents seek to extort the sum of 1.2 million, JdN and Joana Morais

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/12/madeleines-parents-seek-to-extort-sum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29

Madeleine’s parents seek to extort the sum of 1.2 million Euros from Gonçalo Amaral
1 December 2009 | Posted by Joana Morais

Amaral seeks support for Social Security and says he has no goods


Gonçalo Amaral asked for the help of the State in order to be able to defend himself in the case brought by the McCanns [1,200 million Euros- £1,092,713.00 GBP].

Alleging economic insufficiency to pay the court costs, the former PJ coordinator saw the Civil Court of Lisbon preventively seize the earnings made from the sale of the book and of the documentary through a sole-proprietor company in his name, as a way to ensure that there will be money to pay any compensation, whose pertinence can only be examined at the main action.


In the aid application document, dated 24 September, Amaral declared an annual net income of 39 thousand Euros [£35,565 GBP], with a household of four people: himself, his wife and two little girls, of 11 and five years old. He also states that he does not to own real estate property.

According to a document from the Land Registry Office of Olhão, dated 21 September, to which the JN had access, Amaral, 'owns' [via a second mortgage loan to BES bank according to the Expresso newspaper article on 28 October 2009] a single-family house consisting of two floors, two terraces and a swimming pool, which is valued at more than 200 thousand euros [£182,144 GBP].

The sole-proprietor company in Amaral's name, created for the marketing of the book, has a car registered, of the Jaguar brand. The registration of that property was made in May, this year.

source: Jornal de Notícias

Lilemor wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/12/madeleines-parents-seek-to-extort-sum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29

Madeleine’s parents seek to extort the sum of 1.2 million Euros from Gonçalo Amaral
1 December 2009 | Posted by Joana Morais

Amaral seeks support for Social Security and says he has no goods


Gonçalo Amaral asked for the help of the State in order to be able to defend himself in the case brought by the McCanns [1,200 million Euros- £1,092,713.00 GBP].

Alleging economic insufficiency to pay the court costs, the former PJ coordinator saw the Civil Court of Lisbon preventively seize the earnings made from the sale of the book and of the documentary through a sole-proprietor company in his name, as a way to ensure that there will be money to pay any compensation, whose pertinence can only be examined at the main action.


In the aid application document, dated 24 September, Amaral declared an annual net income of 39 thousand Euros [£35,565 GBP], with a household of four people: himself, his wife and two little girls, of 11 and five years old. He also states that he does not to own real estate property.

According to a document from the Land Registry Office of Olhão, dated 21 September, to which the JN had access, Amaral, 'owns' [via a second mortgage loan to BES bank according to the Expresso newspaper article on 28 October 2009] a single-family house consisting of two floors, two terraces and a swimming pool, which is valued at more than 200 thousand euros [£182,144 GBP].

The sole-proprietor company in Amaral's name, created for the marketing of the book, has a car registered, of the Jaguar brand. The registration of that property was made in May, this year.

source: Jornal de Notícias

This appears to show Amaral has been less than candid with the authorities.A stupid move as these things are easily checked out.

fishie wrote:

Lilemor wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/12/madeleines-parents-seek-to-extort-sum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29

Madeleine’s parents seek to extort the sum of 1.2 million Euros from Gonçalo Amaral
1 December 2009 | Posted by Joana Morais

Amaral seeks support for Social Security and says he has no goods


Gonçalo Amaral asked for the help of the State in order to be able to defend himself in the case brought by the McCanns [1,200 million Euros- £1,092,713.00 GBP].

Alleging economic insufficiency to pay the court costs, the former PJ coordinator saw the Civil Court of Lisbon preventively seize the earnings made from the sale of the book and of the documentary through a sole-proprietor company in his name, as a way to ensure that there will be money to pay any compensation, whose pertinence can only be examined at the main action.


In the aid application document, dated 24 September, Amaral declared an annual net income of 39 thousand Euros [£35,565 GBP], with a household of four people: himself, his wife and two little girls, of 11 and five years old. He also states that he does not to own real estate property.

According to a document from the Land Registry Office of Olhão, dated 21 September, to which the JN had access, Amaral, 'owns' [via a second mortgage loan to BES bank according to the Expresso newspaper article on 28 October 2009] a single-family house consisting of two floors, two terraces and a swimming pool, which is valued at more than 200 thousand euros [£182,144 GBP].

The sole-proprietor company in Amaral's name, created for the marketing of the book, has a car registered, of the Jaguar brand. The registration of that property was made in May, this year.

source: Jornal de Notícias

This appears to show Amaral has been less than candid with the authorities.A stupid move as these things are easily checked out.

It means nothing of that sort. it means the house is in his name but does not actually belong to him as it belongs to the bank. Quite common among people who have mortgages. You stop paying and the bank gets the house.

Claudia79 wrote:

fishie wrote:

Lilemor wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/12/madeleines-parents-seek-to-extort-sum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29

Madeleine’s parents seek to extort the sum of 1.2 million Euros from Gonçalo Amaral
1 December 2009 | Posted by Joana Morais

Amaral seeks support for Social Security and says he has no goods


Gonçalo Amaral asked for the help of the State in order to be able to defend himself in the case brought by the McCanns [1,200 million Euros- £1,092,713.00 GBP].

Alleging economic insufficiency to pay the court costs, the former PJ coordinator saw the Civil Court of Lisbon preventively seize the earnings made from the sale of the book and of the documentary through a sole-proprietor company in his name, as a way to ensure that there will be money to pay any compensation, whose pertinence can only be examined at the main action.


In the aid application document, dated 24 September, Amaral declared an annual net income of 39 thousand Euros [£35,565 GBP], with a household of four people: himself, his wife and two little girls, of 11 and five years old. He also states that he does not to own real estate property.

According to a document from the Land Registry Office of Olhão, dated 21 September, to which the JN had access, Amaral, 'owns' [via a second mortgage loan to BES bank according to the Expresso newspaper article on 28 October 2009] a single-family house consisting of two floors, two terraces and a swimming pool, which is valued at more than 200 thousand euros [£182,144 GBP].

The sole-proprietor company in Amaral's name, created for the marketing of the book, has a car registered, of the Jaguar brand. The registration of that property was made in May, this year.

source: Jornal de Notícias

This appears to show Amaral has been less than candid with the authorities.A stupid move as these things are easily checked out.

It means nothing of that sort. it means the house is in his name but does not actually belong to him as it belongs to the bank. Quite common among people who have mortgages. You stop paying and the bank gets the house.

Thanks for the correction Claudia.Always happy to be put right.

fishie wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

fishie wrote:

Lilemor wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/12/madeleines-parents-seek-to-extort-sum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29

Madeleine’s parents seek to extort the sum of 1.2 million Euros from Gonçalo Amaral
1 December 2009 | Posted by Joana Morais

Amaral seeks support for Social Security and says he has no goods


Gonçalo Amaral asked for the help of the State in order to be able to defend himself in the case brought by the McCanns [1,200 million Euros- £1,092,713.00 GBP].

Alleging economic insufficiency to pay the court costs, the former PJ coordinator saw the Civil Court of Lisbon preventively seize the earnings made from the sale of the book and of the documentary through a sole-proprietor company in his name, as a way to ensure that there will be money to pay any compensation, whose pertinence can only be examined at the main action.


In the aid application document, dated 24 September, Amaral declared an annual net income of 39 thousand Euros [£35,565 GBP], with a household of four people: himself, his wife and two little girls, of 11 and five years old. He also states that he does not to own real estate property.

According to a document from the Land Registry Office of Olhão, dated 21 September, to which the JN had access, Amaral, 'owns' [via a second mortgage loan to BES bank according to the Expresso newspaper article on 28 October 2009] a single-family house consisting of two floors, two terraces and a swimming pool, which is valued at more than 200 thousand euros [£182,144 GBP].

The sole-proprietor company in Amaral's name, created for the marketing of the book, has a car registered, of the Jaguar brand. The registration of that property was made in May, this year.

source: Jornal de Notícias

This appears to show Amaral has been less than candid with the authorities.A stupid move as these things are easily checked out.

It means nothing of that sort. it means the house is in his name but does not actually belong to him as it belongs to the bank. Quite common among people who have mortgages. You stop paying and the bank gets the house.

Thanks for the correction Claudia.Always happy to be put right.

No problem.
Most Portuguese people are familiar with that situation. The house is yours but not really yours.

Claudia79 wrote:

fishie wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

fishie wrote:

Lilemor wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/12/madeleines-parents-seek-to-extort-sum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29

Madeleine’s parents seek to extort the sum of 1.2 million Euros from Gonçalo Amaral
1 December 2009 | Posted by Joana Morais

Amaral seeks support for Social Security and says he has no goods


Gonçalo Amaral asked for the help of the State in order to be able to defend himself in the case brought by the McCanns [1,200 million Euros- £1,092,713.00 GBP].

Alleging economic insufficiency to pay the court costs, the former PJ coordinator saw the Civil Court of Lisbon preventively seize the earnings made from the sale of the book and of the documentary through a sole-proprietor company in his name, as a way to ensure that there will be money to pay any compensation, whose pertinence can only be examined at the main action.


In the aid application document, dated 24 September, Amaral declared an annual net income of 39 thousand Euros [£35,565 GBP], with a household of four people: himself, his wife and two little girls, of 11 and five years old. He also states that he does not to own real estate property.

According to a document from the Land Registry Office of Olhão, dated 21 September, to which the JN had access, Amaral, 'owns' [via a second mortgage loan to BES bank according to the Expresso newspaper article on 28 October 2009] a single-family house consisting of two floors, two terraces and a swimming pool, which is valued at more than 200 thousand euros [£182,144 GBP].

The sole-proprietor company in Amaral's name, created for the marketing of the book, has a car registered, of the Jaguar brand. The registration of that property was made in May, this year.

source: Jornal de Notícias

This appears to show Amaral has been less than candid with the authorities.A stupid move as these things are easily checked out.

It means nothing of that sort. it means the house is in his name but does not actually belong to him as it belongs to the bank. Quite common among people who have mortgages. You stop paying and the bank gets the house.

Thanks for the correction Claudia.Always happy to be put right.

No problem.
Most Portuguese people are familiar with that situation. The house is yours but not really yours.

It's the same over here in England,the difference is if asked we have to declare how much of the equity we own we have to state a percentage,say I've paid twenty years on a 25 yr mortgage the property is more mine than the banks.
Does that apply in Portugal or do you have to own the whole before any ownership is yours?

No amount of money is of any consequence in the Kingdom Of Heaven when those that really seek to hide the Truth Of The Lie will ultimately have to answer & pay for their sins. Whoever seeks to hide the Truth Of The Lie may God have mercy on your wretched souls. Amen

Schnuffel wrote:No amount of money is of any consequence in the Kingdom Of Heaven when those that really seek to hide the Truth Of The Lie will ultimately have to answer & pay for their sins. Whoever seeks to hide the Truth Of The Lie may God have mercy on your wretched souls. Amen

For them is just McKingdom and nothing else exist.

Claudia79 wrote:

fishie wrote:

Lilemor wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/12/madeleines-parents-seek-to-extort-sum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29

Madeleine’s parents seek to extort the sum of 1.2 million Euros from Gonçalo Amaral
1 December 2009 | Posted by Joana Morais

Amaral seeks support for Social Security and says he has no goods


Gonçalo Amaral asked for the help of the State in order to be able to defend himself in the case brought by the McCanns [1,200 million Euros- £1,092,713.00 GBP].

Alleging economic insufficiency to pay the court costs, the former PJ coordinator saw the Civil Court of Lisbon preventively seize the earnings made from the sale of the book and of the documentary through a sole-proprietor company in his name, as a way to ensure that there will be money to pay any compensation, whose pertinence can only be examined at the main action.


In the aid application document, dated 24 September, Amaral declared an annual net income of 39 thousand Euros [£35,565 GBP], with a household of four people: himself, his wife and two little girls, of 11 and five years old. He also states that he does not to own real estate property.

According to a document from the Land Registry Office of Olhão, dated 21 September, to which the JN had access, Amaral, 'owns' [via a second mortgage loan to BES bank according to the Expresso newspaper article on 28 October 2009] a single-family house consisting of two floors, two terraces and a swimming pool, which is valued at more than 200 thousand euros [£182,144 GBP].

The sole-proprietor company in Amaral's name, created for the marketing of the book, has a car registered, of the Jaguar brand. The registration of that property was made in May, this year.

source: Jornal de Notícias

This appears to show Amaral has been less than candid with the authorities.A stupid move as these things are easily checked out.

It means nothing of that sort. it means the house is in his name but does not actually belong to him as it belongs to the bank. Quite common among people who have mortgages. You stop paying and the bank gets the house.

Claudia - if that were the case, the property would be shown in the land registry as being owned by the bank. According to the report it is shown as belonging to Amaral, and subject to a charge by way of mortgage. This means that he does actually own the property and it is an asset of his, and should have been declared.

Any charge against the property would be taken into account in assessing his means.

It may be that the mortgage is as much as or ore than the house is worth, but concealing an asset from the authorities, especially one that is so easily checked against public records, is not clever and may prejudice his case for state aid if he is pleading poverty.

Sorry about this. I have no idea whatsoever about the legal situation regarding mortgages in Portugal.

However, I know a little about translation and am disappointed that the 'translation' on Joana's blog is not actually a direct translation of the Jornal de Noticias article as the casual (particularly English-speaking) reader would probably expect it to be.

This paragraph is the significant one.

De acordo com um documento da Conservatória do Registo Predial de Olhão, datado de 21 de Setembro último, a que o JN teve acesso, Amaral é proprietário de uma moradia unifamiliar, composta por dois pisos, dois terraços e piscina e que está avaliada em mais de 200 mil euros.

Joana's 'translation' reads as follows:

According to a document from the Land Registry Office of Olhão, dated 21 September, to which the JN had access, Amaral, 'owns' [via a second mortgage loan to BES bank according to the Expresso newspaper article
on 28 October 2009] a single-family house consisting of two floors, two terraces and a swimming pool, which is valued at more than 200 thousand euros [£182,144 GBP].

I am not an expert in the Portuguese language but believe that the following is actually a more accurate translation.

According to a document from the Land Registry of Olhão, dated 21 September last, to which the JN had access, Amaral, is the owner of a single family house consisting of two floors, two terraces and swimming pool, and which is valued at more than 200 thousand euros.

I accept the phrases contained within brackets could be explained as additional information and this was partially implied by reference to the Espresso article. However, I would have preferred a clearer indication of this maybe in a note after the piece.

I cannot understand, though, why the translation has been changed from owns to 'owns'. To my mind this changes the meaning of the piece significantly and does not represent the original article accurately.

Indeed JJP. In political circles this sort of thing is usually called 'spin'.

Not helpful in this case.

Well if I am banned for asking an honest question, so be it.

On many, many occasions I have stood up for the translators on the forums, against those who have unfairly criticised them. However, in this case I cannot understand the need to change the article so significantly.

Had it been done in a comment beneath the translation, then I would have had no problems whatsoever.

sans_souci wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

fishie wrote:

Lilemor wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/12/madeleines-parents-seek-to-extort-sum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29

Madeleine’s parents seek to extort the sum of 1.2 million Euros from Gonçalo Amaral
1 December 2009 | Posted by Joana Morais

Amaral seeks support for Social Security and says he has no goods


Gonçalo Amaral asked for the help of the State in order to be able to defend himself in the case brought by the McCanns [1,200 million Euros- £1,092,713.00 GBP].

Alleging economic insufficiency to pay the court costs, the former PJ coordinator saw the Civil Court of Lisbon preventively seize the earnings made from the sale of the book and of the documentary through a sole-proprietor company in his name, as a way to ensure that there will be money to pay any compensation, whose pertinence can only be examined at the main action.


In the aid application document, dated 24 September, Amaral declared an annual net income of 39 thousand Euros [£35,565 GBP], with a household of four people: himself, his wife and two little girls, of 11 and five years old. He also states that he does not to own real estate property.

According to a document from the Land Registry Office of Olhão, dated 21 September, to which the JN had access, Amaral, 'owns' [via a second mortgage loan to BES bank according to the Expresso newspaper article on 28 October 2009] a single-family house consisting of two floors, two terraces and a swimming pool, which is valued at more than 200 thousand euros [£182,144 GBP].

The sole-proprietor company in Amaral's name, created for the marketing of the book, has a car registered, of the Jaguar brand. The registration of that property was made in May, this year.

source: Jornal de Notícias

This appears to show Amaral has been less than candid with the authorities.A stupid move as these things are easily checked out.

It means nothing of that sort. it means the house is in his name but does not actually belong to him as it belongs to the bank. Quite common among people who have mortgages. You stop paying and the bank gets the house.

Claudia - if that were the case, the property would be shown in the land registry as being owned by the bank. According to the report it is shown as belonging to Amaral, and subject to a charge by way of mortgage. This means that he does actually own the property and it is an asset of his, and should have been declared.

Any charge against the property would be taken into account in assessing his means.

It may be that the mortgage is as much as or ore than the house is worth, but concealing an asset from the authorities, especially one that is so easily checked against public records, is not clever and may prejudice his case for state aid if he is pleading poverty.

I have no intention whatsoever to enter a dialogue with you.
Just wanted to make that clear because you might think I didn't read your reply.

fishie wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

fishie wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

fishie wrote:


This appears to show Amaral has been less than candid with the authorities.A stupid move as these things are easily checked out.

It means nothing of that sort. it means the house is in his name but does not actually belong to him as it belongs to the bank. Quite common among people who have mortgages. You stop paying and the bank gets the house.

Thanks for the correction Claudia.Always happy to be put right.

No problem.
Most Portuguese people are familiar with that situation. The house is yours but not really yours.

It's the same over here in England,the difference is if asked we have to declare how much of the equity we own we have to state a percentage,say I've paid twenty years on a 25 yr mortgage the property is more mine than the banks.
Does that apply in Portugal or do you have to own the whole before any ownership is yours?

It depends, Fishie.
Here you can even have more than one mortgage.

Just a personal opinion: anyone who isn't happy with any translations can do their own. Starting 2 and a half years ago.

One of my friends just moved recently. She has paid the bank 2 or three months of the total 30 year mortgage. The house is in her name.

Claudia79 wrote:One of my friends just moved recently. She has paid the bank 2 or three months of the total 30 year mortgage. The house is in her name.

And if she were called upon to declare her assets, would she include her house as an asset and the mortgage as a liability?

sans_souci wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:One of my friends just moved recently. She has paid the bank 2 or three months of the total 30 year mortgage. The house is in her name.

And if she were called upon to declare her assets, would she include her house as an asset and the mortgage as a liability?

For the second time:

I have no intention whatsoever to enter a dialogue with you.
Just wanted to make that clear because you might think I didn't read your reply.

Claudia79 wrote:Just a personal opinion: anyone who isn't happy with any translations can do their own. Starting 2 and a half years ago.

Innacurate translations are of no use to anyone seeking the truth.

Just a personal opinion, of course. But I suspect one which most right-minded people would agree with.

If something was to be inaccurately translated that favoured the Mccanns there would be uproar,it's only fair that any inaccuracy is pointed out,whatever side of the fence you sit.
JMHO

jjp wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Just a personal opinion: anyone who isn't happy with any translations can do their own. Starting 2 and a half years ago.

Innacurate translations are of no use to anyone seeking the truth.

Just a personal opinion, of course. But I suspect one which most right-minded people would agree with.

Which is exactly why I suggested that anyone not satisfied with any translations would do them themselves, starting 2 and half years ago.
There are two reasons why I haven't done many translations about this case. The first one is that when I translate I expect to be paid. Very well paid, as a matter of fact. The second one is that I knew for sure that sooner or later I would be criticised by pros and even antis. Being well paid and being criticised is acceptable. Working for free and being criticised is a no no to me. As Amber has said before when people moaned about the way she dealt with issues in this forum, I have no intention of providing a service for free, sacrificing my life, my family and friends and be slagged off for it.
As a translator, in this field the word 'innacurate' is the kind of thing that could end up resulting in a PhD thesis.
Obviously just a personal opinion too. One which I am entitled too whether people agree with it or not.

Claudia79 wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:One of my friends just moved recently. She has paid the bank 2 or three months of the total 30 year mortgage. The house is in her name.

And if she were called upon to declare her assets, would she include her house as an asset and the mortgage as a liability?

For the second time:

I have no intention whatsoever to enter a dialogue with you.
Just wanted to make that clear because you might think I didn't read your reply.

Fair enough. But I do wonder what you are so worried about - I don't bite and I am interested in the case.

sans_souci wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:One of my friends just moved recently. She has paid the bank 2 or three months of the total 30 year mortgage. The house is in her name.

And if she were called upon to declare her assets, would she include her house as an asset and the mortgage as a liability?

For the second time:

I have no intention whatsoever to enter a dialogue with you.
Just wanted to make that clear because you might think I didn't read your reply.

Fair enough. But I do wonder what you are so worried about - I don't bite and I am interested in the case.

Breaking my own rule but just for this time.
Worried?
There is a reason why I only post here and on my blog. Because I do not wish to have any kind of interaction with pros. More than two years are more than enough to know how it ends up. I like it here. And I will continue to like it here. But I don't have to interact with all the posters here. Simple. Having said that, happy posting.

Claudia79 wrote:

jjp wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Just a personal opinion: anyone who isn't happy with any translations can do their own. Starting 2 and a half years ago.

Innacurate translations are of no use to anyone seeking the truth.

Just a personal opinion, of course. But I suspect one which most right-minded people would agree with.

Which is exactly why I suggested that anyone not satisfied with any translations would do them themselves, starting 2 and half years ago.
There are two reasons why I haven't done many translations about this case. The first one is that when I translate I expect to be paid. Very well paid, as a matter of fact. The second one is that I knew for sure that sooner or later I would be criticised by pros and even antis. Being well paid and being criticised is acceptable. Working for free and being criticised is a no no to me. As Amber has said before when people moaned about the way she dealt with issues in this forum, I have no intention of providing a service for free, sacrificing my life, my family and friends and be slagged off for it.
As a translator, in this field the word 'innacurate' is the kind of thing that could end up resulting in a PhD thesis.
Obviously just a personal opinion too. One which I am entitled too whether people agree with it or not.

Sorry - no PhD thesis required here at all!

Does the phrase "Amaral é proprietário de uma moradia unifamiliar" mean owns or does it mean 'owns' with the deliberately added inverted commas to imply doubt?

I have no argument whatsoever with those who doubt the original article and wish to discuss the meaning of ownership but to change the meaning within the translation by the addition of the inverted commas is very questionable indeed.

jjp wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

jjp wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Just a personal opinion: anyone who isn't happy with any translations can do their own. Starting 2 and a half years ago.

Innacurate translations are of no use to anyone seeking the truth.

Just a personal opinion, of course. But I suspect one which most right-minded people would agree with.

Which is exactly why I suggested that anyone not satisfied with any translations would do them themselves, starting 2 and half years ago.
There are two reasons why I haven't done many translations about this case. The first one is that when I translate I expect to be paid. Very well paid, as a matter of fact. The second one is that I knew for sure that sooner or later I would be criticised by pros and even antis. Being well paid and being criticised is acceptable. Working for free and being criticised is a no no to me. As Amber has said before when people moaned about the way she dealt with issues in this forum, I have no intention of providing a service for free, sacrificing my life, my family and friends and be slagged off for it.
As a translator, in this field the word 'innacurate' is the kind of thing that could end up resulting in a PhD thesis.
Obviously just a personal opinion too. One which I am entitled too whether people agree with it or not.

Sorry - no PhD thesis required here at all!

Does the phrase "Amaral é proprietário de uma moradia unifamiliar" mean owns or does it mean 'owns' with the deliberately added inverted commas to imply doubt?

I have no argument whatsoever with those who doubt the original article and wish to discuss the meaning of ownership but to change the meaning within the translation by the addition of the inverted commas is very questionable indeed.

I would have translated it the exact same way. Inverted commas, footnote, parenthesis, whatever you want. Simply using the word owns without adding anything would imply that Mr Amaral owns the house which is fully paid and that there are no mortgages or payments to be made to the bank. That is how I would have translated it. If anyone paid me to do so, of course.