The High Court has made an interlocutory order under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 concerning a family home at 116 Huntstown Avenue, Clonsilla, Dublin 15.
In a judgment delivered on 18 December 2013, Mr Justice Birmingham found on the civil standard of proof that the property constituted, directly or indirectly, proceeds of crime. The order sought by the Criminal Assets Bureau prohibits disposal of or other dealings with the property, or diminishing its value. The judgment does not describe this as a final order under section 4.
The proceedings began with an ex parte application in March 2012. The court then made an order under section 2 after being satisfied that the property was proceeds of crime. The Bureau later applied for the section 3 order now considered. The application was heard mainly on affidavit, with limited cross-examination. The second respondent did not formally participate; the court was told that arguments made for the first respondent also applied to her.
The property was bought in July 1999 for €131,127.12, excluding legal costs. The Bureau argued that criminal activity partly funded the purchase, mortgage repayments totalling €51,909.72, and a substantial extension. The judge considered the purchase funding, repayments and extension in turn. He found that the respondents’ initial purchase, repayments and extension could not be explained by the first respondent’s legitimate earnings as a carpenter and car dealer.
The first respondent said he returned from Britain with legitimate savings from carpentry and car dealing. In cross-examination, he accepted that available funds were a “mixed bag”, including earnings, social welfare received while working, and benefits claimed under two false names. He also disputed the cost of the extension: he had told gardaí it cost about €50,000 to €60,000, but later affidavits put his outlay at about €7,800, with his own labour and lower-cost materials. The court also heard an estimate of €80,000 based on using a contractor.
The judge referred to 28 recorded convictions in Ireland and 23 in Britain, a British benefits fraud of about £36,000, and cannabis found in vehicles associated with the first respondent in 2009. He also noted €368,009.62 in account lodgements from unknown sources between June 2004 and September 2009. Taken together, these matters led him to conclude that the property was proceeds of crime.
The respondents argued that the property was a family home and that an order would cause serious injustice, citing five children, limited household income, difficulty finding alternative accommodation and the first respondent’s cancer treatment. The judge held that neither its status as a family home nor the medical circumstances prevented the section 3 order at this stage. He said some matters, including legitimate income, could be considered further in a section 4 application.