The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals by Dean Russell against High Court orders under the Proceeds of Crime Acts. The orders found that properties in his legal title were proceeds of crime and appointed receivers over two of them. The appeal judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Baker on 9 March 2020, upheld the findings and the appointment of a receiver over Russell’s principal private residence at Riverside Park, Clonshaugh, Dublin 17.
The first appeal concerned a November 2013 order appointing a receiver over an apartment at Lymewood Mews, Santry. The second concerned an April 2014 order appointing a receiver over the Clonshaugh home, directing the receiver to take possession and sell or otherwise dispose of it without delay to obtain the best price reasonably available. The High Court had also declared an apartment in Malaga, Spain, to be proceeds of crime, but no receiver was appointed over it in the orders described in the appeal.
Russell argued that the first hearing was unfair because he was absent and unrepresented, and that the properties were not proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge had evidence that Russell knew the November hearing date, including an affidavit describing a phone call in which Russell confirmed receipt of a letter enclosing transcripts and was told the matter was listed for a full hearing. The appeal court concluded that the judge was entitled to proceed in his absence. It also found that Russell had not provided evidence contradicting the account of service.
In considering whether the Clonshaugh home was proceeds of crime, the appeal court reviewed evidence about unexplained funds, property payments and other expenditure. The High Court had heard that 61 per cent of lodgements to identified accounts—€356,326—came from unknown sources. It also heard that only €2,442 of €60,940 in mortgage instalments on the Clonshaugh property could be traced to what the Bureau described as a legitimate source. The appeal court held that the evidence supported the finding and that Russell had not shown his income and resources were sufficient to explain the purchase and expenditure.
Russell also challenged the receiver’s appointment, citing the home’s use as a family residence, a temporary mortgage repayment arrangement and an insurance certificate produced at the hearing. The High Court had expressed significant concerns about the effectiveness of the insurance, including evidence that two previous policies had been repudiated and questions about what had been disclosed to the insurer. The appeal court held that the judge had adequately weighed the relevant equitable factors, including occupation, mortgage payments and insurance, and found no basis to set aside the order. It dismissed both appeals.