The High Court has refused Criminal Assets Bureau applications over nine properties and five bank accounts which the Bureau alleged represented the proceeds of crime generated by the late P.F.
The assets included four parcels at Ardkirk, Co Monaghan, other lands in Monaghan, Ravensdale Hall and adjoining land in Co Louth, an apartment at The Sweepstakes in Ballsbridge, Dublin, and land at Clonbrick, Co Tipperary. Five bank accounts were also included.
P.F. was murdered in September 1997. The proceedings, begun in 2000, were directed principally against his widow, A.F., who was also acting in relation to his estate. No allegation was made that she had herself generated the funds through criminal activity.
CAB sought an order under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and appointment of a receiver under section 7. Its case relied heavily on opinion and hearsay evidence from Garda and other investigators concerning P.F.’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking, smuggling and other criminal activity.
Mr Justice Feeney held that the court had to assess the quality of that evidence before allowing the statutory opinion evidence to be admitted. He identified a combination of serious difficulties. Some assets had been acquired more than 30 years before trial. Much of the information came from unidentified sources, intelligence material or unavailable documents. P.F. was dead and therefore unable to explain the provenance of funds. There was also little financial or tax material concerning the years he lived in Britain.
The judge also found that the Bureau’s original case had focused substantially on alleged criminality outside Ireland. That became significant after a 2004 Supreme Court ruling limited the legislation then applicable to proceeds of crimes committed within the State.
The court concluded that reasonable grounds for the Chief Bureau Officer’s opinion had not been established in evidence. Without that opinion evidence, CAB had not made out a prima facie case that the assets represented proceeds of crime within Ireland. The section 3 order was refused, and the dependent section 7 receiver application also failed.
A separate settlement concerning two accounts claimed by P.F.’s son was left for further consideration.