Judgment: 2025-04-07 · Court archive

High Court allows Charlene Lam €6,000 from Coolock house sale for legitimate mortgage contributions

High Court · [2025] IEHC 215

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Criminal Assets Bureau (Applicant)
  • James Gately
  • Charlene Lam (Respondent)
What

High Court allows Charlene Lam €6,000 from Coolock house sale for legitimate mortgage contributions

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Glin Drive
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court examined extensive banking records from Lam's AIB and Revolut accounts. Owens J found that she had genuine business income and that by 2022 her receipts from her salon and other beauticians were sufficient to service monthly mortgage payments.

The High Court has allowed Charlene Lam a further €6,000 from the proceeds of sale of her Coolock home to recognise legitimate money she contributed towards mortgage repayments.

Mr Justice Alexander Owens delivered the supplemental judgment on April 7, 2025, in Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings brought by the Criminal Assets Bureau against Lam and James Gately. It followed an earlier judgment delivered in June 2024 concerning the property at Glin Drive.

The issue was whether mortgage instalments paid between April 2019 and September 2022 were funded directly or indirectly from proceeds of crime. Lam claimed she had contributed towards the mortgage using money from her beauty business, a lottery win and other legitimate sources.

The court examined extensive banking records from Lam's AIB and Revolut accounts. Owens J found that she had genuine business income and that by 2022 her receipts from her salon and other beauticians were sufficient to service monthly mortgage payments.

However, the judge also found substantial evidence that Lam and Gately had access to money from undisclosed sources. He said those funds supported travel, household expenditure and other aspects of their lifestyle and thereby freed legitimate income for mortgage payments.

The court found this indirect subsidy was substantial between 2019 and the end of 2022, although less significant during 2022. The evidence did not permit the unlawful component to be quantified precisely.

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, an interest in property acquired partly through proceeds of crime can itself be treated as derived from crime. Owens J said that principle is subject to proportionality and that the court should avoid an order which would work an injustice.

He therefore directed that Lam receive €6,000 from the net sale proceeds as fair recognition of the legitimate element of her contributions.

The court made no further adjustment for the benefit Lam and Gately obtained from living in the property or for the additional interest which accumulated after mortgage payments stopped.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review