The High Court has ordered relief under proceeds of crime legislation in relation to three properties linked to David and Charlene Waldron, after finding that the Criminal Assets Bureau established they were acquired or developed using proceeds of crime.
In a judgment delivered on 17 April 2024, Mr Justice Alexander Owens ruled that Riverforest, a house in Leixlip, Ratoath Road in Cabra and Darview Heights, near Gorey, came within section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The proceedings began in 2019; Charlene Waldron was added as a respondent in 2020.
The Bureau alleged that David Waldron had been involved in the supply and sale of controlled drugs since 2000 and that the activity funded property purchases, mortgage payments and building work. The judge assessed the Bureau’s evidence first and found it established, on the balance of probabilities, that the properties had been acquired in whole or in part with, or in connection with, proceeds of crime. He then considered the Waldron couple’s affidavits and concluded they did not displace that provisional assessment.
The judgment traced the property chain from Glenties Park, bought by David Waldron in 2001, to Riverforest, purchased in 2003, and then Ratoath Road, bought in 2008 using equity in Riverforest. The judge found that mortgage applications for the earlier purchases and Ratoath Road contained false employment and income information, and that mortgage payments and extensive renovation work were funded through criminal proceeds and related rental income.
The court also found that the €40,000 site for Darview Heights was bought using cash routed through several bank drafts, and that the stated €200,000 sale of Charlene Waldron’s funeral-related business, Elegant Send Off, was a pretence used to launder money. The judge estimated that building and fitting out Darview Heights likely cost about €800,000, with the funding most likely originating from David Waldron’s criminal activity. He found the couple’s explanations did not account for the site purchase or construction costs.
The court said it could identify no circumstances making orders over the three properties disproportionate or creating a serious risk of injustice. It also declined to require that Charlene Waldron be recompensed from any eventual sale proceeds. The judgment does not specify in the supplied text the detailed form or mechanics of the orders.