The High Court has found that temporary orders freezing assets held by four financial institutions in relation to two respondents were properly made in July 2008. The ruling decided a preliminary issue about the orders’ validity; the orders had already expired, and no freezing order was in force when the issue was heard.
The Revenue authorised officer sought orders under section 908 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 for access to financial records and information, as well as a temporary restriction on dealings with the respondents’ assets at Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Banks, ACC Bank and Irish Life and Permanent. The application was made ex parte on 21 July 2008. The court later varied the restrictions and, by agreement, they were lifted in August. The respondents’ undertakings remained in place.
The judgment addressed whether the freezing order had been properly made, in light of the respondents’ challenge and their contention that they could seek an inquiry into damages under an undertaking given by Revenue. The judge said any damages inquiry was a possible next step; it was not decided in this ruling.
The first respondent argued, among other grounds, that the applicant lacked authority to seek a freezing order without separate written consent, that Revenue should first have used other statutory routes, and that material taken from his laptop had been unlawfully obtained or transferred. The court rejected the first two arguments. It held that consent to the section 908(2) application covered the ancillary section 908(8) relief, and that section 908 could be used regardless of other available Revenue powers. The court did not decide the constitutional-rights argument about using section 908 as a last resort because it had not been properly brought before it.
The judge found that material from the laptop which did not relate to the Bureau’s investigation of an unnamed client had not been obtained for the purposes of the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996. The Bureau therefore lacked authority to transmit that material to Revenue under section 8(7), and it was inadmissible in support of the section 908 application. But the judge found there was other evidence supporting the application. Assessing the freezing-order question without the laptop material, the court concluded there were reasonable grounds to apprehend that both respondents would move funds held at the four institutions to put them beyond Revenue’s reach.
The second respondent argued that her tax affairs were in order and that there was no evidence she intended to leave the jurisdiction or act improperly. The judge found her financial affairs and asset ownership were closely intertwined with those of the first respondent, and that a real risk existed that assets held in her name at the institutions would be moved beyond Revenue’s reach.
The ruling establishes that the July 2008 orders were properly made. It does not revive them or determine any claim for damages.