The High Court has refused the Criminal Assets Bureau’s application for a well charging order over a Ballybough Road property, finding that the evidence did not establish that the judgment debtor had an interest in it.
The decision, delivered by Mr Justice Roderick Murphy on 18 June 2009, followed the joint hearing of two consolidated proceedings. The Bureau sought to enforce judgment mortgages registered against A.C. (Junior)’s interest in the property. A.C. (Senior), who brought the second action, sought to have the registration discharged, saying he owned the property legally and beneficially.
The Bureau’s judgments against A.C. (Junior) totalled €1,325,830.09, covering taxes, penalties and interest. The judgment records that he had been found guilty of drug charges and was in custody at the time of the hearing. The property was purchased in 1994 in the name of A.C., and the sale contract was signed “A.C. (In trust)”. The father and son had the same name.
The Bureau argued that their finances had been intermingled, that the purchase funds did not match particular deposits or withdrawals by the father, and that the son had worked on the property. It said these circumstances supported an inference that he had a beneficial interest. The father maintained that he was the sole owner and had provided the purchase money. The Bureau accepted that the case was an application to enforce judgment mortgages, not proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996; the ordinary rules of evidence therefore applied.
The judge said ownership had to be determined by the court, rather than left to an examiner through accounts and inquiries. The Bureau bore the burden of proving an interest under section 7 of the Judgment (Ireland) Act 1850. Intermingled funds did not, by themselves, show that money came from the son, and the evidence that he worked on the property did not establish an interest or joint undertaking. The judge also found no evidence that the son had a power to dispose of the property for his own benefit.
The court expressed concern that the father had not precisely demonstrated the source of the purchase money, including whether a £24,000 deposit in February 1994 funded a solicitor’s draft of £24,226.92 in May. But those concerns did not fill the evidential gap in the Bureau’s case. It was not satisfied that the evidence proved the son had financed or part-financed the purchase, and it declined to make the well charging order. The judgment does not record a separate order discharging the registration.