The High Court has ordered the forfeiture of most assets claimed by the Criminal Assets Bureau in proceedings against Yan-Yan Fan and Guang Ying Wang, while excluding a number of designer goods and allowing €89,998 to be deducted from the proceeds of a property sale and repaid to Fan’s parents.
In a judgment delivered on 7 June 2024, Mr Justice Alexander Owens ruled under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The Bureau’s application concerned, among other assets, a bank draft representing proceeds from the sale of an apartment on Liffey Walk, a balance in Fan’s Bank of Ireland account, cash seized from an apartment in Cedarhurst Road and designer goods.
The judge found that the Bureau had established, on a prima facie basis, that the assets covered by the orders were acquired with or connected to proceeds of crime. He accepted that Fan controlled and owned apartments bought in her mother’s name at Academy Square and Distillery Quay, and that proceeds of crime had been used to acquire them. The judgment also records the Bureau’s allegations about criminal activity and money laundering; the asset proceedings were not a criminal trial determining criminal charges against either respondent.
The court ordered that €3,000 of a €7,000 booking deposit for an intended Smithfield apartment be forfeited, along with €14,255 in cash seized at Cedarhurst Road. It also ordered forfeiture of €129,260 related to Fan’s Bank of Ireland account, reflecting the balance identified in October 2020. The judge said there was insufficient evidence to treat later increases in the account balance as proceeds of crime.
An order also applies to the bank draft of about €229,990 from the Liffey Walk sale, subject to €89,998 being deducted and repaid to Fan’s parents. The judge accepted that this sum came from the sale of their apartment in China and was contributed towards the Liffey Walk purchase. He rejected the Bureau’s attempt to link that contribution to criminal proceeds.
The order covers the remaining scheduled items except for listed goods, including items numbered 4, 5, 7, 11, 24, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 45, 64, 77, 82, 83, 93, 99 and 100. The judge accepted Fan’s explanations for several goods and found insufficient evidence that four items seized from a sublet apartment were under her control. The judgment does not specify the full identity or description of each scheduled item in its final order.
The case is to return to the proceeds of crime list for further consideration of outstanding matters, including ancillary orders and costs. The judgment does not resolve those matters.