The High Court granted the plaintiff an order under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 after finding that the statutory test was met in relation to money said to be proceeds of crime.
The proceedings concerned money seized from the respondent in February 2002 and €40,000 found in a Lexus in October 2003. The court held that the plaintiff had established reasonable grounds for the belief required by section 8 of the Act: that the respondent was in possession or control of specified property and that it represented proceeds of crime. The respondent did not give oral evidence.
In February 2002, Gardaí found €16,890 and £5,720 sterling in a bedside locker during a search of the respondent’s bedroom. They also found cannabis resin, heroin, scales and small plastic bags. An inspector gave evidence that the respondent signed statements describing drug dealing and acknowledging that the money came from it, although also referring to coal and fireplaces. No criminal charges followed the search; the Director of Public Prosecutions had directed that charges should not be brought.
A separate €40,000 was found in October 2003 in a box in the rear footwell of a Lexus driven by another man. The money was arranged in 40 bundles of €1,000. The registered owner was the respondent’s fiancée. A used-car dealer testified that the respondent had bought the Lexus for €25,000 in cash in 2002, also paid in bundles of €1,000. The driver and registered owner made no claim to the seized money. The judge found the car purchase evidence supported the plaintiff’s belief that the respondent beneficially owned the vehicle and had a connection to the money.
The judge excluded hearsay evidence about what the driver said about his purpose for being in the car. The decision relied on admissible evidence, including the lack of a claim to the money and the owner’s failure to report it missing when she inspected the car. The judge also found that the respondent’s affidavit supporting a legal-aid application, which referred to the seizure of money listed in the proceedings, was sufficient prima facie to establish reasonable grounds concerning the €40,000.
The respondent’s counsel argued that the handling of property seized under a search warrant breached section 29(4) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939, and challenged the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence and the admissibility of the signed statements. The judge rejected all three submissions. The order was for relief under section 3; the judgment does not specify a further order or details of how the money was to be dealt with.