The High Court has ordered action under proceeds-of-crime legislation against a Dublin home, a Volkswagen Golf and a Rolex watch after finding, on the balance of probabilities, that they were acquired using proceeds of crime. The order over the home is subject to a lien protecting certain payments by Charlene Lam, and the judge gave her and James Gately a further opportunity to address that issue.
In a judgment delivered on 19 June 2024, Mr Justice Alexander Owens considered an application brought by the Criminal Assets Bureau under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The case concerned a semi-detached house on Glin Drive, Coolock, the 132D VW Golf seized outside it in June 2019, and a Rolex watch seized during a search of the house that day.
The judge found that Gately bought the house in 2013 for €125,000, using money from undisclosed sources for the deposit and legal fees, and that it was extensively renovated. He concluded that the renovation was funded largely from undisclosed funds and that most mortgage payments up to April 2019 were subsidised by proceeds of crime. He found the Bureau had not established that mortgage payments after that date and before the proceedings began were similarly subsidised.
The judgment identified five mortgage instalments totalling €2,837, and a further €2,250 payment toward arrears, as funded from Lam’s legitimate means. The court directed that the order over the house be subject to a lien over eventual sale proceeds to repay the €5,087, along with any later mortgage payments that Lam can show were not funded by proceeds of crime. The judge said the respondents would have another opportunity to address those later payments. The proceedings did not determine whether payments made after the case began came from proceeds of crime.
The judge also found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Rolex and the 132D Golf were acquired using proceeds of crime. He rejected Lam’s account that she had bought the watch from a friend of her father for €1,200 or €1,500, finding the explanation unlikely and the price inconsistent with its value. The judgment provides for an order concerning the watch and car, or their proceeds if sold.
The Bureau alleged that the couple used criminal proceeds to acquire the assets and support their lifestyle. The judge said some assumptions in the Bureau accountant’s calculations were questionable, but found the conclusions were supported by other compelling evidence. He also said explanations offered by Gately and Lam did not persuade him to change his conclusions.
The judgment records that the case began in December 2021. The court found the house’s equity overwhelmingly represented proceeds of crime and considered an order proportionate subject to the repayment lien. It did not state the final value of the house or set out a sale date.