The Supreme Court has ruled that the plaintiff in a Criminal Assets Bureau proceeds-of-crime case must deliver a statement of claim after the defendant requests one, rejecting the practice of pursuing the section 3 application solely by notice of motion and affidavits.
The ruling arose from proceedings issued in July 2000 by F. McK., an officer of the Criminal Assets Bureau, seeking orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 concerning land holdings and bank accounts. J.F., the second-named respondent and appellant, was alleged to be a joint holder of two of the accounts. The plaintiff's affidavit expressly stated that no allegation of criminality was made against him.
J.F. entered an appearance in September 2000 and asked for a statement of claim. The request was refused on the basis of an existing High Court practice under which such a pleading was not considered necessary in Criminal Assets Bureau cases. He then sought dismissal of the proceedings.
Delivering judgment on January 30, 2002, Mr Justice Fennelly held that an order under section 3 of the 1996 Act was not merely interlocutory in the ordinary procedural sense. Such an order can impose a complete embargo on dealing with property, may remain in force for at least seven years before a disposal order can be sought, and requires the court to address whether the property represents proceeds of crime.
Because the Act did not create a different procedural route, the normal plenary summons rules applied. Once J.F. requested a statement of claim, the plaintiff was therefore required to provide one.
The Supreme Court did not, however, order the proceedings to be dismissed. It found that the plaintiff had acted on a mistaken view of the law consistent with existing High Court practice and said an appropriate extension of time should be granted for delivery of the statement of claim. The ruling did not determine whether the property was in fact the proceeds of crime.