The High Court found that a Land Rover Discovery acquired by Catherine O’Brien was derived from proceeds of crime and was acquired mostly with such proceeds. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Alexander Owens on 16 February 2022, considered the Criminal Assets Bureau’s application under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996.
The application concerned a Land Rover Discovery registered 151 C 2667. The court considered whether there were reasonable grounds for a senior Garda officer’s belief that the vehicle had been acquired, in whole or in part, with proceeds of crime. It held that there were, and said the material provided very strong support for that belief.
The judgment traced funds and vehicle transactions involving Advanced Vetmed Ireland Limited (AVMI), Padraig McNamara and O’Brien. McNamara had advanced €290,000 in 2014 for the company. A proposed purchase in Dungarvan did not proceed, and €180,000 was returned to solicitors’ client account. The court found that €47,000 from funds held for AVMI was later used to pay for an earlier Land Rover supplied to O’Brien, after she had given the dealer a cheque that her account could not cover.
For the vehicle at issue, the court found that an altered cheque from McNamara, originally made payable to the Companies Registration Office for €27, was changed to “Cash” and €21,000. It was lodged to O’Brien’s account and helped fund an €11,000 payment to the dealer. The new Land Rover was valued at €60,518, with €48,518 attributed to the trade-in of the earlier vehicle. The judge also referred to evidence of two other altered cheques, worth €15,000 and €10,725, that went to O’Brien’s account.
O’Brien denied altering cheques and denied involvement with AVMI. She and Ned Hawe said she had transferred ownership of the vehicle to him as security for a €50,000 loan. The judge found their affidavit evidence unreliable and insufficient to displace his provisional conclusion. He said the claimed loan lacked supporting detail or documents and that the evidence did not show a serious risk of injustice if an order were made under section 3(1).
The judgment excerpt supplied does not state the terms of any final order. It records the court’s conclusion on the application and the threshold issue, but the precise order cannot be established from this source alone.