The High Court found that a strip of land known as Ballycummin was bought with assets derived from proceeds of crime, but rejected the Criminal Assets Bureau’s claim that the evidence linked criminal proceeds to another property at Annacotty.
In a judgment delivered on 7 October 2020, Mr Justice Alexander Owens considered the Bureau’s application under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The properties were bought in 2016 and 2017 by Ellen Cawley Casey and Patrick Casey respectively.
The Bureau argued that money used to buy Ballycummin came from criminal activity and was channelled through bank accounts. The judge accepted evidence of large cash lodgements into the Caseys’ accounts between 2005 and 2007, followed by withdrawals and dormant balances. He found their explanations for the cash and for funds used in the Ballycummin purchase unconvincing. He concluded the remaining funds used for the purchase were derived from proceeds of crime.
The judgment also records that the Caseys had failed over a number of years to disclose their true means to social welfare authorities, resulting in an overpayment quantified in the evidence at €363,401.45. The judge said those proceeds helped meet day-to-day expenses. He treated the evidence about criminal activity and the banking records as supporting the Bureau’s case on Ballycummin.
The Bureau’s case on Annacotty focused on €9,500 and €14,500 credited to Patrick Casey’s account. Most of the purchase cost, the court noted, was covered by an injury compensation settlement and an insurance payment. The €14,500 was said to come from the sale of the family’s Ford Galaxy to Sean Murray. Although the Bureau relied on the relationship between the men and the absence of dealership records, the judge said the evidence did not show the car was not worth that amount or establish a link between the payment and criminal proceeds. He also declined to infer that the €9,500 credit was criminal in origin.
The judge therefore found the evidence insufficient to conclude that any part of the Annacotty purchase was funded by proceeds of crime. He rejected the submission that a section 3 order over Ballycummin would create a serious risk of injustice, noting that the Caseys did not live there and that the evidence did not establish such a risk. The judgment records that he was satisfied the land was wholly funded by assets derived from crime, with any non-criminal contribution too small to matter.