The High Court has upheld the forfeiture of €79,950 seized from James Baxter’s carry-on bag at Dublin Airport in 2017, rejecting his appeal against a Circuit Court order.
In a judgment delivered on 25 March 2021, Mr Justice Alexander Owens found on the balance of probabilities that the cash directly or indirectly represented the proceeds of crime or was intended for use in connection with criminal conduct. He also found it had been lawfully seized and detained under the Criminal Justice Act 1994 after a customs officer questioned Baxter and his bag was examined with his consent.
Customs officer Edel Kilbride said she stopped and questioned Baxter at about 6am on 26 November 2017 as part of routine profiling. He was preparing to board a Ryanair flight to Barcelona. According to her affidavit, Baxter said he was carrying about €300, then handed over his bag for inspection. A customs officer found a brown envelope containing cash. Baxter said the total was €80,000 and described it as his life savings, accumulated at home. He said he was not working, but had his own company and received €20,000 to €30,000 a year in pensions.
Kilbride said she suspected the money was criminal proceeds or intended for criminal conduct and seized it at 6.10am. The Director of Public Prosecutions later applied to the Circuit Court for forfeiture. Baxter challenged the legality of the customs officers’ interaction and search, and argued that the evidence did not establish grounds for forfeiture.
The judge found that Baxter consented to the bag inspection and that the customs officer had sufficient grounds to rely on section 31 of the Customs Act 2015. The judgment said routine profiling provided reasonable grounds for the customs interaction; the nature of the profiling information was not described in the evidence. The judge added that even if there had been an impropriety, it would not justify refusing forfeiture in this case.
The court also rejected Baxter’s explanations for the cash, including that it came from a house sale or insurance policies and that he carried large sums because he had lost faith in banks. The judgment said the documents he produced did not support those accounts. It also considered evidence of a separate 2016 seizure in Spain, which Baxter accepted had occurred, and concluded that the two seizures could not be explained as an unfortunate coincidence.
The High Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s forfeiture order. The money, then represented by a deposit balance in a Bank of Ireland account, could be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in accordance with ministerial directions.