The High Court has made an order under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act in relation to a Dublin 15 home owned by Stefan Saunders and Tammy Saunders, finding that its remaining value after the mortgage is discharged derives from proceeds of crime.
In a judgment delivered on 6 September 2022, Mr Justice Alexander Owens said the residual value in the Hazelbury Park property was derived from proceeds of crime. He said nothing had been identified to establish that making the order would create a serious risk of injustice.
The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) had sought an order concerning Hazelbury Park and a second property, Mayeston Lawn in Finglas. The judge found that the couple acquired both properties using proceeds of crime, and that criminal proceeds also funded the renovation of Hazelbury Park, mortgage payments up to 2010, and income and benefits connected with Mayeston Lawn. The judgment records that Mayeston Lawn had recently been sold as part of the couple’s personal insolvency arrangements, with a small surplus used to reduce the mortgage on Hazelbury Park.
The court examined mortgage applications, Revenue records and bank statements. It found that the couple had access to funds between 2003 and 2006 that were far beyond their possible legitimate earnings. Their explanations that plastering, security work, business income, savings and loans funded the properties and renovation were not accepted as accounting for the spending. The judge concluded that proceeds from Stefan Saunders’s criminal activities as a member of a gang of robbers funded a spending spree on houses, cars and businesses between 2005 and 2008.
The judgment also set limits on those conclusions. The court found insufficient evidence to support the CAB’s suggestion that receipts from the U Design interiors business were a vehicle for laundering money. It could not conclude that Saunders did no plastering work, though the bank activity made it unlikely that the recorded lodgements and withdrawals reflected plastering earnings. Nor did it find that mortgage payments from 2011 to 2016 were derived to any significant extent from criminal proceeds; those payments were minimal and did not materially affect the properties’ residual equity.
The respondents denied the alleged criminal activity and said they had borrowed heavily to buy the properties. The judge found their evidence general and unconvincing, and rejected their account of the funding for the homes and renovations. The operative order stated in the judgment concerns Hazelbury Park. The judgment does not state an order concerning Mayeston Lawn, which had already been sold.