The High Court has ordered proceeds of crime relief over a Mercedes-Benz, racehorse Labaik, an account linked to the horse, a mobile home and a Rathcoole property. In the same judgment, Ms Justice Stewart dismissed John Boylan’s claim against the Criminal Assets Bureau over Labaik’s injury at Punchestown in April 2017.
The court heard four consolidated applications by the Bureau under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The applications concerned the Mercedes-Benz E Class, Labaik, Horse Racing Ireland account 20EH3, a Willaby Aspen Mac7 mobile home and 73 Forest Hill, Rathcoole, County Dublin. The judge said the Bureau had established a prima facie case through its officers’ evidence and the Chief Bureau Officer’s belief evidence. She found the respondents had not discharged the burden of proof, citing a substantial shortfall between identified legitimate income and expenditure, including €629,911.13 spent on refurbishment of the Rathcoole property. She ordered the section 3 relief sought over the scheduled assets.
The Bureau’s evidence included allegations that Boylan, also named in the proceedings as John Power, was involved in the drugs trade and that the assets derived from criminal proceeds. The judgment records that he denied the allegations but did not address their specifics in evidence. The court’s proceeds of crime ruling concerned whether the assets were acquired with or connected to proceeds of crime; it was not a criminal conviction.
A separate plenary claim arose from Labaik’s injury after the horse ran in the Punchestown Champion Hurdle on 28 April 2017. Boylan claimed damages for negligence, breach of duty and misfeasance in public office, among other grounds, alleging that the Bureau’s actions prevented him from selling the horse and that Bureau officers facilitated the race by releasing its passport.
The judge accepted trainer Gordon Elliott’s evidence that he chose the race entry and found that Bureau officers facilitated it by returning the passport under supervision. She said she was satisfied the Bureau’s explanation for not informing the court earlier that Labaik had raced and been injured was adequate, and that there was no intention to show disrespect to the court. She found no bad faith or negligence by the Bureau officers and concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Boylan’s claim was not made out. She dismissed the plenary proceedings.
Anthony O’Sullivan had sought 50% of the funds in the HRI account but withdrew his application during the hearing. The court dismissed that application and struck out his motion. The judgment also ordered anonymity for two Bureau officers identified only as Revenue Bureau Officer 65 and Social Welfare Bureau Officer 53.