The High Court has found, on a prima facie basis, that a watch and a house in Rialto were acquired or improved using proceeds of crime, and ordered action under the Proceeds of Crime Act. The court has yet to decide whether to appoint a receiver to take possession of the assets.
In a judgment delivered on 21 February 2020, Mr Justice Alexander Owens said the Criminal Assets Bureau had established its case against Paul Gray and Kevin Gray junior in relation to the watch and the house at 18 Mallin Avenue. The judge found that Paul Gray possessed or controlled the watch when it was seized and that, although Kevin Gray junior had ostensible possession or control of the house, its real possession or control lay with Paul Gray.
The judge accepted evidence that the watch had been acquired with proceeds of crime. He also found a prima facie case that the house was acquired through a loan arrangement designed to create a lawful source for a €20,000 payment, with repayments funded by money generated by Paul Gray’s drug dealing. He said evidence supported the Bureau’s belief that the property was later extended and refurbished with proceeds of crime.
The Bureau had also alleged that the house was handed over to settle a €40,000 drug debt. The judge did not initially rely on that claim because the source of the intelligence supporting it was not identified. He later said evidence that Patrick Lee and Paul Gray knew each other, together with what he found to be false evidence that Lee did not know Gray, supported an inference that money from the Lees had been routed back to Paul Gray. He described Lee as an unreliable witness.
Kevin Gray junior said he bought and renovated the property using his own resources and that the works were done in 2013 and 2014. The judge rejected that account, citing the absence of vouchers for the claimed expenditure, the scale of the work and evidence that Paul Gray was living at the house by 2016. He found on the balance of probabilities that the renovation costs and fixtures and fittings were funded by Paul Gray. The judge expressly said there was no suggestion Kevin Gray junior was himself involved in the drug trade, but concluded that he had assisted his brother in laundering its profits by acting as ostensible owner.
The judgment says an order must be made under section 3(1) in respect of the watch and the house, including fixtures and fittings. The judge amended the case title to use “Kevin Gray junior”, also known as “Kevin Grey”. Whether to appoint the Bureau’s Chief Legal Officer as receiver remained undecided; the proposed powers and duties set out in the judgment were conditional on that appointment.