Criminal Assets Bureaujustice.ie/en/JELR/CABAnnualRep16.pdf/Files/CABAnnualRep16.pdf · the media....

Criminal Assets BureauHarcourt SquareDublin 2D02 PT89Ireland

Tel: +353 1 666 3266Fax: +353 1 666 3296Email: [email protected]: criminalassets

Tá an tuarascáil seo ar fáil i Gaeilge freisin.This report is also available in the Irish language.

Copyright Government of Ireland.This report was compiled and designed by the CAB Annual Report Committee 2016.

Contents

Contents...................................................................................................................................iLetter from Commissioner of An Garda Síochána to Minister for Justice & Equality......vLetter from Chief Bureau Officer to Commissioner of An Garda Síochána...................viiForeword ............... ...............................................................................................................xi

One: Overview of the Criminal Assets Bureau and its officers & staffThe Bureau ......................................................................................................1Finance ............................................................................................................1Objectives and functions ...............................................................................1Chief Bureau Officer ......................................................................................2Bureau Legal Officer ......................................................................................2A body corporate ............................................................................................2Bureau officers and staff................................................................................3Authorised Staffing Levels..............................................................................3Special Crime Task Force.................................................................................4Anonymity .......................................................................................................4Structure of the Bureau .................................................................................5Chief State Solicitor’s Office .........................................................................5Divisional Asset Profilers ...............................................................................5

Case 1......................................................................................................6Case 2......................................................................................................6Case 3......................................................................................................7

FATF Evaluation................................................................................................7Training and Development...............................................................................8

TACTIC...................................................................................................8Organisation Chart..........................................................................................10

Two: Criminal Assets Bureau InvestigationsInvestigations ..................................................................................................11Section 14 .....................................................................................................11Section 14A ...................................................................................................12Applications made during 2016 ...................................................................13

Section 17, Criminal Justice (Money Laundering & Terrorist .............Financing) Act, 2010............................................................................13

Three: Actions under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 & 2016Introduction ..................................................................................................15Amendment to PoC Act..................................................................................16

Section 1A.............................................................................................16Case 1....................................................................................................16Case 2....................................................................................................17

Section 2(1) review .......................................................................................17Valuation breakdown ....................................................................................18Section 3 review ............................................................................................18

iCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Contents(continued)

Section 3(3) review .......................................................................................19Geographical breakdown ..............................................................................20Property ........................................................................................................20Vehicles .........................................................................................................20Section 4(1) & 4A ..........................................................................................21Section 6........................................................................................................22Section 7........................................................................................................22

Four: Revenue actions by the BureauOverview........................................................................................................25Tax Functions ...............................................................................................25Tax Assessments...........................................................................................25Tax Appeals ...................................................................................................25Appeals to the Appeal Commissioners........................................................26

Refusal Appeals..................................................................................26Appeals to the Circuit Court.........................................................................26Collections.....................................................................................................27Recoveries.....................................................................................................27Demands........................................................................................................27Circuit Court..................................................................................................27High Court......................................................................................................27Judgements....................................................................................................27Prosecutions..................................................................................................27

Thomas Murphy..................................................................................27Customs & Excise functions.........................................................................28Revenue tables..............................................................................................30

Five: Social Welfare actions by the BureauOverview........................................................................................................33Savings...........................................................................................................33Overpayments...............................................................................................33Recoveries.....................................................................................................33Appeals...........................................................................................................33Section 5.1(c) Cases........................................................................................34

Case 1....................................................................................................34Case 2....................................................................................................34

Section 5.1(d) Cases........................................................................................34Case 3....................................................................................................34Case 4....................................................................................................34

Social Welfare Tables.....................................................................................36

Six: Criminal Prosecutions arising from investigations of the BureauIntroduction...................................................................................................37

iiCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

contents(continued)

Tax Related Offences....................................................................................37Case 1 .................................................................................................37

Operation Lamp ............................................................................................37Operation Griffin.............................................................................................37

Seven: Significant Court Judgments during 2016CAB -v- SR & Christopher Russell..................................................................41CAB v. Niall O’Donoghue (otherwise Simon Gold, Anglo Irish Global Ltd, & Kurt Lauridsen ..............................................................................................53

Eight: International developmentsThe international perspective.......................................................................65Asset Recovery Office..................................................................................65International Operations...............................................................................65Europol...........................................................................................................65Interpol...........................................................................................................65CARIN.............................................................................................................66ALEFA.............................................................................................................66The Freezing, Confiscation & Recovery of Assets Conference.................67ICOFI Training..................................................................................................67Relationship with External Law Enforcement Agencies.............................68

Cross Border Organised Crime Conference....................................68Cross Border Fuel Group & Cross Border Excise Group................68

Visits to the Bureau.......................................................................................68Agreement signed between HMRC & CAB on 10th August 2016.................68

Nine: Protected Disclosures Annual Report.....................................................................71

Ten: Conclusions .............................................................................................................73

Appendix: Objectives and Functions of the Bureau.........................................................75

iiiCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Contents(continued)

[This page has been left intentionally blank]

ivCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Letter forwarding report from the Garda Commissioner to the Minister for Justice and Equality

Dear Minister

In accordance with the provisions ofSection 21 of the Criminal Assets BureauAct 1996, I am pleased to present to you,the 2016 Annual Report of the CriminalAssets Bureau.

The report outlines the activities of theBureau during 2016, in the pursuit of itsstatutory remit, detailing actions broughtby the Bureau under proceeds of crime,revenue and social welfare legislation insuccessfully targeting the suspectedproceeds of criminal conduct. The reportdemonstrates that the Bureau remainsan integral part of the law enforcementresponse to criminal conduct in Ireland.

The Bureau, during 2016, devotedconsiderable efforts at tackling criminalproceeds which are generated from abroad range of criminal activity,focussing on all forms of property relatedcrime. In this regard, the Bureau hasengaged in extensive cooperation withlaw enforcement agencies in NorthernIreland, including the PSNI, HMRC andthe National Crime Agency. This remainsan important focus of the Bureau’sefforts in circumstances where theinternational aspects of investigationshave become more pronounced.

Internationally, the Bureau continues toliaise and conduct investigations with lawenforcement and judicial authoritiesthroughout Europe and worldwide inpursuit of assets deriving from criminalconduct.

The Bureau continues to be an activemember of the Camden Asset RecoveryInter-Agency Network (CARIN) and tomaintain its effectiveness at aninternational level as the designatedAsset Recovery Office (ARO) in Ireland,utilising these networks to achieve itsobjectives.

In pursuing its objectives, the Bureauliaises closely with An Garda Síochána,the Office of the RevenueCommissioners, the Department of SocialProtection, the Department of Justiceand Equality and all law enforcementagencies in the State in developing acoherent strategy to target assets andprofits deriving from criminal conduct,and in particular, organised crime.

In this regard, the Bureau continues tomake significant inroads in tacklingserious criminals including thoseinvolved in trafficking and the sale ofdrugs which cause extensive problemswithin our community. Of particularinterest this year is the focus placed bythe Bureau on organised travellingcriminal groups primarily engaged inburglary and robbery.

The Bureau has developed its links withlocal communities through supportinglocal Garda Management in enhancingthe role of the Divisional Asset ProfilersNetwork.

This initiative is particularly effective intackling individuals involved in criminalactivity at a local and community levelwhich has been an area of concern forsome time.

vCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Letter forwarding report from Garda Commissioner to the Minister for Justice and Equality

I am pleased to note the Bureau hasprovided training to additional DivisionalAsset Profilers and commits to furthertraining during 2017.

I note that the Programme forGovernment 2016 “A Programme forPartnership Government” committed toreviewing the Proceeds of Crimelegislation and to ensuring that theBureau has adequate resources tosupport its work.

Yours sincerely

______________________

NÓIRÍN O’SULLIVANCOMMISSIONER OFAN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

viCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Letter forwarding report from Chief Bureau Officer to the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Dear Commissioner

It is my pleasure to present to you the21st Annual Report of the CriminalAssets Bureau for the calendar year2016. This report is submitted forpresentation to the Minister for Justiceand Equality, pursuant to the provisionsof Section 21 of the Criminal AssetsBureau Act, 1996. In compliance with itsstatutory obligations, the report sets outthe activities of the Bureau throughoutthe year in targeting the proceeds ofcrime.

During the year, the Bureau has investeda great deal of effort in developing theDivisional Asset Profiler Network. Whilstin the short term, this may not yieldimmediate results, the Bureau isconfident that it lays the foundation forproceeds of crime, revenue and socialwelfare actions which will lead toincreased enforcement actions in futureyears. The proceeds of crime actions,together with actions under the Revenueand Social Protection provisions yielded

€in excess of 3.8 million to the Exchequerin 2016.

During 2016, thirteen new applicationswere brought before the High Courtunder the Proceeds of Crime legislation.Once again, the majority of these actionswere taken arising from the proceeds ofdrug trafficking. In addition, actions weretaken against persons suspected ofinvolvement in a wide variety of criminalconduct, most notably in respect ofcriminal proceeds arising from organisedcrime groups engaged primarily inburglary crime and crime groupsoperating in rural areas of the country.

In August 2016, the Proceeds of Crime(Amendment) Act 2016 was commenced.At 31st December 2016, the power underSection 1(A) Proceeds of Crime Act 1996,as amended was used effectively on twooccasions by Bureau Officers.

Similarly, the threshold for invoking theProceeds of Crime Act reduced from€ €13,000 to 5,000. This will facilitate theBureau in targeting a wider range ofassets demonstrating a committedresponse by the State to tackle crime atall levels.

The Criminal Assets Bureau, using theappropriate Proceeds of Crime legislation

€forwarded in excess of 1.4 million to theExchequer, under Revenue provisions,

€forwarded in excess of 2 million and€also recovered in excess of 297,430 in

respect of overpayments under SocialWelfare provisions.

The strategy of the Bureau to co-ordinateits activities in a manner which takescognisance of the Policing Plans of AnGarda Síochána and the strategies of theRevenue Commissioners and theDepartment of Social Protection hasbeen continued in 2016.

This report refers to a number ofcriminal investigations and prosecutionsbefore the Criminal Courts. Theprosecutions in question related tocriminal offences under Revenuelegislation together with an offenceunder the Criminal Assets Bureau Act.

viiCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Letter forwarding report from Chief Bureau Officer to Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

One such case, the DPP v ThomasMurphy, which concluded before theSpecial Criminal Court throughsentencing.

The Bureau’s ongoing commitment inrecent years towards raising the level ofexpertise at its disposal through theprovision of appropriate training for allpersonnel was accelerated during 2016.

In addition, during the year, inconjunction with the Garda College, TheAsset Confiscation and TracingInvestigators Course (TACTIC) wasprogressed to a conclusion. This courseis specifically designed to meet the needsof the Bureau in future years andespecially to enhance its ability to meetthe investigative challenges which lieahead in the context of tracing criminalassets.

The Bureau continues to develop itsrelationships with Interpol, Europol andthe Camden Assets Recovery Inter-Agency Network (CARIN). The reportdetails some major developments by wayof international cooperation ininvestigations undertaken by the Bureau.A number of cases are outlined inconsiderable detail which demonstratesthe level of co-operation engaged in andthe success achieved as a result. Inaddition, on the international level, theBureau continues to represent Ireland atthe platform of the Asset RecoveryOffices. During 2016, the Bureau alongwith the Department of Finance, AnGarda Síochána and other Agenciessupported the examination of Irelandfrom a money laundering and terroristfinancing perspective by the Financial

Action Task Force (FATF).

From the beginning, the Bureau hasreceived excellent support fromlegislators, members of the public andthe media. This is further demonstratedthrough professional workingrelationships with the FinancialInstitutions, Accountancy Bodies andother regulatory agencies within thecountry as well as from direct liaison withthe public.

The Bureau has enhanced itscommunications capacity through theuse of social media.

Over the past number of years, theBureau has had to adapt and change inresponse to the changing patterns ofcriminal behaviour. The requirement forinternational cooperation between lawenforcement agencies has increased tothe point where virtually everyinvestigation currently underway hassome international aspect to it.

Nonetheless, the Bureau hasdemonstrated its effectiveness and itsability to meet the challenges posed bythese developments and facing into itstwenty first year, to remain central to theoverall law enforcement response toserious and organised crime in thisjurisdiction. In particular, through itsactions, the Bureau has played its part inresponding to the threat posed to IrishSociety by a major criminal feud betweenthe Kinahan and Hutch Organised CrimeGangs.

viiiCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Letter forwarding report from Chief Bureau Officer to Commissioner of An GardaSíochána

In recognising the valiant effort towardsresponding to serious and organisedcrime played by officers of the CriminalAssets Bureau, past and present, aprivate event was held at Dublin Castleon Friday 14th October 2016 (almosttwenty years to the day since theestablishment of the Bureau) which wasattended by the then Tánaiste andMinister for Justice and Equality, DeputyFrances Fitzgerald, T.D.

I wish to acknowledge with gratitude thesupport and co-operation afforded to theBureau throughout the year by An GardaSíochána, the Revenue Commissioners,the Department of Social Protection, theDepartment of Justice and Equality, theDepartment of Finance, the Departmentof Public Expenditure and Reform, theOffice of the Attorney General and theOffice of the Director of PublicProsecutions.

I would also like to particularlyacknowledge the expertise andcommitment of the solicitors and staffallocated by the Chief State Solicitor tothe work of the Bureau. The value ofinhouse independent legal advice andsupport cannot be over emphasisedtowards contributing to the success ofthe Bureau. In addition, I want toacknowledge the contribution of LegalCounsel engaged by the Bureau.

During the year, there were manypersonnel changes within the Bureauarising from the departure of a numberof personnel on promotion, retirement,and transfer. This is an inevitable realitygiven the structure of the Bureau and asa result it has given rise to the emphasis

on maintaining a strong and veryresourced system for staff training whichhas been put in place in recent years.

I wish to acknowledge the dedication andhard work of all personnel attached tothe Bureau past and present. The natureof the work is such that, in manyinstances, it cannot be publiclyacknowledged due to the requirement foranonymity and security requirements forthe personnel concerned relating to theirwork. I would also like to take theopportunity to welcome new personnelwho have joined the Bureau during theyear and wish them well in the future.

Finally, as this is my first report as ChiefBureau Officer, I wish to acknowledge thehigh level of professionalism, dedicationand commitment demonstrated by allBureau officers and staff of the Bureau. Iwish the former Chief Bureau Officer,Assistant Commissioner EugeneCorcoran every success for the future.

Yours sincerely

________________________________

PATRICK CLAVINDETECTIVE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENTCHIEF BUREAU OFFICER June 2017

ixCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Letter forwarding report from Chief Bureau Officer to Commissioner of An Garda Síochána


xCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Foreword

Section 21 ReportThis is the 21st Annual Report of theactivities of the Criminal Assets Bureau(hereinafter referred to as “the Bureau”)and covers the period from 1st January2016 to 31st December 2016 inclusive.

The Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 andthe Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 haveboth been amended on a number ofoccasions but most substantially by wayof the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment)Act, 2005.

For the purpose of this report, theCriminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 and2005 will hereinafter be referred to as“the Act”’ and the Proceeds of Crime Act1996 and 2016 will hereinafter bereferred to as “the PoC Act”. The 1996Act, together with the 2005 and 2016Acts, provide a collective title ofamendments governing the powers andfunctions of the Bureau.

This report is prepared pursuant toSection 21 of the Act which requires theBureau to present a report, through theCommissioner of An Garda Síochána, tothe Minister for Justice and Equalityoutlining its activities during the year2016.

xiCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Foreword

View of the Four Courts, Dublin

xiiCriminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016

Part One Overview of the Criminal Assets Bureau, its Officers and Staff

The BureauOn the 15th October 1996, the Bureauwas formally established by theenactment of the Act. The Act providesfor (among other matters):

• the objectives of the Bureau;

• the functions of the Bureau;

• the Chief Bureau Officer;

• Bureau Officers;

• staff of the Bureau;

• the Bureau Legal Officer;

• anonymity of staff of the Bureau;

• offences and penalties foridentifying staff of the Bureauand their families;

• offences and penalties forobstruction and intimidation;

• CAB search warrants; and

• CAB production orders.

FinanceDuring the course of the year, the Bureauexpended monies provided to it throughthe Oireachtas by the Minister for Justiceand Equality in order to carry out itsstatutory functions and to achieve itsstatutory objectives.

All monies provided by the Oireachtas asoutlined in the table are audited by theComptroller and Auditor General, as isprovided for by Statute.

The Department of Justice and Equality'sInternal Audit Unit provides support to

the Bureau in monitoring and reviewingthe effectiveness of the Bureau'sarrangements for governance, riskmanagement and internal controls.

The Internal Audit Unit conducts anindependent audit of the Bureau'sprocedures and processes on an annualbasis.

Comparison of Accounts for years 2015 / 2016

Year

Descript-ion

Amount €Budget

ProvisionTotalSpent

2015 Pay 5,372,000 5,681,000Non-Pay 1,701,000 997,000Total 7,073,000 6,678,000

2016 Pay 5,341,000 5,418,000Non-pay 1,701,000 1,268,000Total 7,042,000 6,686,000

Objectives and functionsThe objectives and functions of theBureau are respectively set out inSections 4 and 5 of the Act. Thesestatutory objectives and functions are setout in full at Appendix (see page 75 & 76)and may be summarised as:

1. identifying and investigating theproceeds of criminal conduct;

2. taking actions under the law todeny and deprive people of thebenefits of assets that are theproceeds of criminal conduct byfreezing, preserving andconfiscating these assets;

3. the taking of actions under theRevenue Acts to ensure that theproceeds of criminal activity aresubjected to tax; and

1Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016


4. investigating and determiningclaims under the Social WelfareActs.

Chief Bureau OfficerThe Bureau is headed by the ChiefBureau Officer, appointed by theCommissioner of An Garda Síochánafrom among its members of the rank ofChief Superintendent. The current ChiefBureau Officer is Detective ChiefSuperintendent Patrick Clavin who tookup his appointment on 4th August 2016following the departure of EugeneCorcoran who was promoted to the rankof Assistant Commissioner within AnGarda Siochána.

The Chief Bureau Officer has overallresponsibility, under Section 7 of the Act,for the management, control and thegeneral administration of the Bureau.The Chief Bureau Officer is responsibleto the Commissioner for theperformance of the functions of theBureau.

This Section also provides for theappointment of an Acting Chief BureauOfficer to fulfil the functions of the ChiefBureau Officer in the event of incapacitythrough illness, absence or otherwise.

Bureau Legal OfficerThe Bureau Legal Officer reports directlyto the Chief Bureau Officer and ischarged under Section 9 of the Act withassisting the Bureau in the pursuit of itsobjectives and functions.

A body corporate The Bureau exists as an independentcorporate body as provided for underSection 3 of the Act. The status of theBureau was first considered in 1999 bythe High Court in the case of Murphy -v-Flood ([1999] IEHC 9).

Mr Justice McCracken delivered thejudgement of the High Court on the 1st ofJuly 1999. This judgement is pivotal tounderstanding the nature of the Bureau.

The Court set out:

“The CAB is established as a bodycorporate with perpetual succession.While the Chief Bureau Officer must beappointed from members of An GardaSíochána of the rank of ChiefSuperintendent, nevertheless the CAB isindependent of An Garda Síochána,although it has many of the powersnormally given to that body.

...

The CAB is a creature of Statute, it is nota branch of An Garda Síochána. It wasset up by the Oireachtas as a bodycorporate primary for the purpose ofensuring that persons should not benefitfrom any assets acquired by them fromany criminal activity. It is given power totake all necessary actions in relation toseizing and securing assets derived fromcriminal activity, certain powers toensure that the proceeds of such activityare subject to tax, and also in relation tothe Social Welfare Acts. However, it isnot a prosecuting body, and is not apolice authority. It is an investigatingauthority which, having investigated andused its not inconsiderable powers ofinvestigation, then applies to the Court



for assistance in enforcing its functions.

The Oireachtas, in setting up the CAB,clearly believed that it was necessary inthe public interest to establish a bodywhich was independent of An GardaSíochána, and which would act in aninvestigative manner. However, I do notthink it is the same as An GardaSíochána, which investigates with an aimto prosecuting persons for offences. TheCAB investigates for the purpose ofsecuring assets which have beenacquired as a result of criminal activitiesand indeed ultimately paying those assetsover [to] the State.”

Bureau officers and staffSection 8 of the Act provides for theappointment of officers of the Bureau.Members of staff of the Bureau areappointed under Section 9 of the Act.

Officers of the Bureau are:

A. members of An Garda Síochána;

B. officers of the RevenueCommissioners; and

C. officers of the Department ofSocial Protection.

Officers are seconded from their parentagencies.

Staff of the Bureau consist of:

I. the Bureau Legal Officer;

II. professional members of staff of the Bureau;

III. administrative and technical members of staff of the Bureau.

Officers of the Bureau continue to bevested with their powers and dutiesnotwithstanding their appointment asBureau Officers.

Authorised Staffing LevelsMulti-agency authorised levels

The authorised staffing level at theBureau comprising Bureau Officers andother staff stands at seventy one.

Following promotions and retirementsduring 2015 and 2016, seven staffvacancies remain at the Bureau at year



end 2016. These vacancies include oneD/Inspector, one D/Sergeant, twoD/Gardai, one Forensic Accountant, oneFinancial Crime Analyst and oneExecutive Officer.

A competition was advertised inNovember 2016 to fill the existing Gardaand Sergeant vacancies and it isexpected that staff will be appointed fromthis Competition in the first half of 2017.

In addition, approval was given by theCommissioner of An Garda Síochána forthe appointment to the Bureau of oneadditional Sergeant and one additionalGarda to support the Bureau in itsstatutory remit. These two new postshave also been included in theaforementioned competition.

A competition to fill the two vacancies inthe Bureau Analysis Unit is expected tobe advertised by the Public AppointmentsService in February 2017.

A Social Welfare Bureau Officer wasappointed in December 2016. Asreported in the 2015 Annual Report, oneExecutive Officer vacancy exists and isexpected to be filled during the first halfof 2017.

The Office of the RevenueCommissioners gave commitment toprovide the Bureau with three additionalOfficers who are expected to beappointed to the Bureau during 2017.

Special Crime Task Force During 2016, the Garda Commissionerestablished a Special Task Force totarget a number of organised crimegangs based in the Dublin area withparticular emphasis on the second andthird level criminals. As part of thesetting up of this unit, which is under thecontrol of the Garda National Drugs andOrganised Crime Bureau, six Gardaí andone Sergeant were seconded to theBureau to assist in the investigations intothe persons identified to trace and targetany assets which have been generatedthrough their criminal conduct.

During 2016, sixty three targets wereidentified and investigations wereundertaken by the staff attached to theSpecial Task Force within the Bureau.

AnonymityIn order to ensure the safety of certainBureau Officers and staff, anonymity forthose members is set out under Section10 of the Act. Under this Section,officers and staff of the Bureau executetheir duties in the name of the Bureau.

Section 11 of the Act provides forcriminal offences relating to theidentification of certain Bureau Officers,staff and their families.

The prohibition of identification does notextend to the Chief Bureau Officer, anActing Chief Bureau Officer, the BureauLegal Officer or the Bureau Officers whoare members of An Garda Síochána.



Structure of the BureauThe multi-agency structure of theBureau, which draws together variousskill sets from the personnel involved,has the benefit of enhancing investigativecapabilities in pursuit of the Bureau’sstatutory remit. This is possible underSection 5 of the Act detailing thefunctions of the Bureau.

Chief State Solicitor's OfficeThe Criminal Assets Section of the ChiefState Solicitor's Office (hereinafterreferred to as “the CSSO”) provides legaladvice and solicitor services to theBureau.

The CSSO represents the Bureau in bothinstituting and defending litigation in allcourt jurisdictions primarily but notexclusively with the assistance ofCounsel. In addition, the CSSO providesrepresentation for all tax and socialwelfare matters both before therespective appeal bodies and in theCircuit and Superior Courts.

Also, the CSSO provides general legaladvices and solicitor services at allstages of case progression frominvestigation to disposal including theprovision of both contract drafting andconveyancing services.

During 2016, the CSSO was staffed asfollows:

2 solicitors;

2 legal executives; and

2 clerical officers.

Divisional Asset ProfilersIn 2016, the Bureau continued itsprogramme of engagement withDivisional Asset Profilers. During theyear, the Bureau trained an additionalnineteen Garda Divisional Asset Profilersto fill vacancies within various GardaDivisions, which arose from retirementsand promotions. At year end, the totalnumber of Divisional Asset Profilersstood at two hundred and eight, whichincluded

• 190 Gardaí;

• 15 Officers of the RevenueCommissioners engaged inCustoms and Excise duties; and

• 3 Officers of the Department ofSocial Protection

During 2016, the role of the DivisionalAsset Profilers was enhanced fromintelligence gathering to a more proactiveinvestigative role. As part of this newdevelopment, Senior Bureau Officersbriefed all Divisional and RegionalDetective Superintendents who areresponsible for the tasking of theDivisional Asset Profilers Network intargeting local Tier 2 and Tier 3 criminals.This engagement with Divisional andRegional management was followed up bya number of refresher training coursesthroughout the country.

In 2017, it is envisaged that the DivisionalAsset Profiler Network will be developedfurther with the training of an additional110 Divisional Asset Profilers.

Throughout 2016 Divisional AssetProfilers from the various Regions have



continued to engage with the Bureau todevelop and progress investigations thathave significant financial impact on localcriminals and, in turn, provide positivefeedback within local communities thatsuffer from the activitites of thesecriminals.

Examples of cases dealt with in 2016 bythe Bureau, that originated withDivisional Asset Profilers are as follows:

Case 1Target engaged in the sale and supply ofcontrolled drugs in Dublin's south innercity. This case was reported to theBureau by a trained Divisional AssetProfiler who is assigned to a local drugsunit. Resulting from his interaction withthe drug dealer, the Divisional AssetProfiler commenced the preparation ofan asset profile which was forwarded tothe Bureau where it was assigned to anInvestigation Team. The Bureau Teamliaised closely with the Divisional AssetProfiler in the further development of theasset profile. This resulted in a searchoperation being conducted by theBureau, supported by local Gardaí. In thecourse of the search operation, cash inthe sum of €37,000 was seized inaddition to two Rolex watches. Thetarget of this operation and his partnerwere not engaged in any declaredemployment and were in receipt ofpayments from the Department of SocialProtection.

Actions in this investigation resulted inthe Bureau obtaining Orders pursuant toSection 4A of the PoC Act, as amended,in respect of the following assets:

1. Audi A3 Motor Car valued at €8,500.

2. Audi A4 Motor Car valued at €10,000

3. 2 x Rolex Watches valued at €9,000 (total)

4. €37,000 in cash

In addition, actions were taken by theBureau under Revenue and SocialProtection powers, where taxes weredemanded and overpayments raised inrespect of Social Protection matters.These matters are currently ongoing andthe Bureau is actively engaged in therecovery of outstanding sums owed tothe Exchequer.

Case 2Target engaged in the sale and supply ofcontrolled drugs in Dublin's North West.This case was reported to the Bureau bya trained Divisional Asset Profiler who isassigned to a local Detective Unit.Resulting from his observations that thesubject was amassing substantial assets,the Divisional Asset Profiler commencedthe preparation of an asset profile whichwas forwarded to the Bureau where itwas assigned to an Investigation Team.

The Bureau Team liaised closely with theDivisional Asset Profiler in the furtherdevelopment of the asset profile. Thisresulted in a search operation beingconducted by the Bureau supported bylocal Gardaí. In the course of the search

£operation, cash in the sum of IR 74,500was seized in addition to an Audi A7motor vehicle. The Audi A7 was seized



using the new powers under Section 3 ofthe PoC Acts 1996-2016 as inserted bySection 1A of the PoC Act 2016. Thetarget of this operation was not engagedin any declared employment and was inreceipt of payments from the Departmentof Social Protection.

Actions in this investigation resulted inthe Bureau obtaining Orders pursuant toSection 4A of the PoC Act, as amended,in respect of the following asset:

1. Audi A7 Motor Car valued at €35,000.

In addition, actions were taken by theBureau under Revenue and SocialProtection powers, where taxes weredemanded and overpayments raised inrespect of Social Protection matters. Asa result of the target utilising close familymembers in the purchase of particularassets, overpayments in respect of SocialProtection payments were raised againsttwo additional family members. Thesematters are currently ongoing and theBureau is actively engaged in therecovery of outstanding sums owed tothe Exchequer.

Case 3Target engaged in the sale and supply ofcontrolled drugs in the Mid West Region.This case was reported to the Bureau bya trained Divisional Asset Profiler, whothrough local investigations, ascertainedthat the target had purchased a ruralresidential property with stables and 18.3acres of land attached.

The Divisional Asset Profiler submittedan asset profile to the Bureau where itwas assigned to an Investigation Team.The Bureau Team liaised closely with theDivisional Asset Profilers in the furtherdevelopment of the asset profile and inthe subsequent search operationconducted by the Bureau.

Actions in the investigation resulted inthe Bureau obtaining Orders pursuant toSection 3 of the PoC Act, as amended inrespect of the following assets:

• House

• Stables

• 18.3 acres of land in Bodyke, Co.Clare valued at approximately€250,000.

In addition, actions were taken by theBureau under Revenue powers, wheretax assessments were made. Thesematters are currently ongoing and theBureau is actively engaged in therecovery of outstanding sums owed tothe Exchequer.

FATF EvaluationThe Financial Action Task Force (FATF) isan inter-governmental body establishedin 1989 by the Ministers of its Membersjurisdictions. The objectives of the FATFare to set standards and promoteeffective implementation of legal,regulatory and operational measures forcombating money laundering, terroristfinancing and other related threats to theintegrity of the international financialsystem. The FATF is therefore a “policy-



making body” which works to generatethe necessary political will to bring aboutnational legislative and regulatoryreforms in these areas.

The FATF has developed a series ofrecommendations that are recognised asthe international standard for thecombating of money laundering and thefinancing of terrorism and proliferationof weapons of mass destruction. Theyform the basis for a co-ordinatedresponse to these threats, to the integrityof the financial system and help ensure alevel playing field. First issued in 1990,the FATF recommendations were revisedin 1996, 2001, 2003 and most recently in2012 to ensure that they remain up todate and relevant, and they are intendedto be of universal application.

The FATF monitors the progress of itsmembers in implementing necessarymeasures, reviews money laundering andterrorist financing techniques andcounter-measures, and promotes theadoption and implementation ofappropriate measures globally. Incollaboration with other internationalstakeholders, the FATF works to identifynational-level vulnerabilities with the aimof protecting the international financialsystem from misuse.

The FATF regularly monitors theprogress of its members in implementingits recommendations through the MutualEvaluation process. This processconsists of a peer review of eachmember, which provides a detaileddescription and analysis of their anti-money laundering and countering thefinancing of terrorism (AML/CFT)

framework present in their legislative,regulatory and supervisory apparatus.The findings of the examiners are thendiscussed at the next plenary andadopted in a Mutual Evaluation Report(MER).

The Fourth Round of MERs commencedin 2014. A review of Ireland under theFourth Round took place in 2016 and willconclude in 2017. A national riskassessment was prepared and a nationalsteering committee chaired by theDepartment of Finance comprised ofrepresentatives of relevant competentauthorities and state bodies, includinginput from the Bureau.

The Bureau put significant work into thepreparation of this MER.

Training and Development

TACTIC

(The Asset Confiscation and Tracing Investigator's Course)

A training needs analysis was carried outby the Bureau to identify critical trainingrequirements for Bureau members. As aresult, the Asset Confiscation andTracing Investigators Course (TACTIC)was developed by the Bureau to providespecific training in Asset Tracing /Confiscation and Financial Investigationsto staff of the Bureau.

TACTIC is conducted in conjunction withthe Garda Training College in



Templemore, Co. Tipperary and coversmany subjects including:

• Asset Identification / Proceeds ofCrime Procedures

• Financial Profiling & Analysis

• Money Laundering (Cross Border/ Terrorism)

• Profiling and Net WorthTechniques

• Digital Forensics / CyberCurrencies

• White Collar Crime / Bribery &Corruption

The course is presented over four weeklyModules at the Garda Training College.To date twelve staff members of theBureau have completed the course and afurther twelve have completed the firstthree Modules, who are due to completeTACTIC training in May 2017. TheBureau and the Garda College arecurrently progressing the course to fullaccreditation with a third level institutionto give a professional qualification toinvestigators.



Diagram: Organisation of the Bureau


Bureau Legal Officer

Bureau Analysis Unit

Administration Unit

IT Unit

Investigation Teams

Social ProtectionRevenueGardaí

An Garda Síochána

Revenue (Tax/Customs)

Dept Social Protection

Chief State Solicitor's Office

Chief Bureau Officer

Part TwoCriminal Assets Bureau Investigations

InvestigationsDuring 2016, Bureau Officers continuedto exercise the powers and duties vestedin them under Section 8 of the Act.

It is important to note that this Sectionvests in the Bureau Officers the dutiesand powers conferred on them by virtueof membership of their respective parentorganisations.

In addition to these powers, the Bureauhas particular powers available to it,namely:

1. CAB search warrants; and

2. Orders to make materialavailable to CAB.

These powers are contained withinSection 14 and Section 14A of the Actand the PoC Act, respectively.

The Bureau conducted its investigationsthroughout 2016 with the cooperationand assistance of Garda personnel fromGarda Divisions and also from Gardanational units such as the Garda NationalEconomic Crime Bureau (GNECB), theGarda National Drugs and OrganisedCrime Bureau (GNDOCB), the GardaNational Bureau of Criminal Investigation(GNBCI), the Special Detective Unit (SDU)and the Security and Intelligence Section,Garda Headquarters.

Investigations were also supported bypersonnel from the Office of the RevenueCommissioners from each of the regions:Dublin Region (Port & Airport); Borders,

Midlands and West Region; South-WestRegion and East, South-East Region andalso from the Investigations andProsecutions Division.

The Bureau continued to cooperate withthe Special Investigation Units of theDepartment of Social Protection inrespect of their investigations in 2016.

This continued assistance has beencritical to the success in targeting theproceeds of criminal conduct during2016.

Section 14Section 14 of the Act provides for CABsearch warrants. Under Section 14(1), anapplication may be made by a BureauOfficer, who is a member of An GardaSíochána, to the District Court for awarrant to search for evidence relating toassets or proceeds deriving from criminalconduct.

Section 14(2) & (3) provides for the issueof a similar search warrant in circum-stances involving urgency whereby themaking of the application to the DistrictCourt is rendered impracticable and thewarrant may be issued by a member ofAn Garda Síochána not below the rank ofSuperintendent.

During 2016, all applications underSection 14 were made to the DistrictCourt and no warrants were issuedpursuant to Section 14(2).



A Section 14 search warrant operates byallowing a named Bureau Officer who is amember of An Garda Síochána,accompanied by other such persons asthe Bureau Officer deems necessary, tosearch, seize and retain material at thelocation named.

This is noteworthy in that it allows themember of An Garda Síochána to beaccompanied by such other persons asthe Bureau Officer deems necessaryincluding persons who are technicallyand/or professionally qualified people toassist him/her in the search.

These warrants are seen as an importanttool which allows the Bureau to carry outits investigations pursuant to its statutoryremit. During 2016, the Bureau executeda number of these warrants in targeting anumber of organised crime groups. Inparticular, the Bureau targeted a knownorganised crime group who are linked toa major transnational drugs organisationwho were suspected to be in possessionof assets which represented their illegaldrug trafficking operation. The Section14 warrants were used to search a largenumber of private residences as well asprofessional offices and otherbusinesses. This led to the seizure oflarge amounts of cash, vehicles and therestraint of properties. This case iscurrently before the court.

In another case, the Bureau targeted anumber of individuals who weresuspected of being involved in frauds anddeception throughout Europe and arebased in the South of the country. Anumber of Section 14 warrants were

used to search private residences as wellas professional offices. This led to theseizure of a large amount of evidenceand material linking these people toassets and wealth. Also during thecourse of these searches, large amountsof cash and valuable items were seized.The Bureau was, in a number ofinstances, able to make tax assessmentswhich were served on these individuals.

Section 14ASection 14A was inserted by the PoC Actand provides for applications to be madeby a Bureau Officer who is a member ofAn Garda Síochána to apply to theDistrict Court for an order directed to anamed person, to make material availableto the Bureau Officer.

The Section 14A Production Orders havebeen used primarily in uplifting evidencefrom a number of financial institutionswithin the State. The material obtainedrelates to banking details and in manyinstances, the transfer of large amountsof money between accounts.

As a result of the information gleaned,the Bureau has been able to use thisevidence as part of its cases in on-goinginvestigations into a number ofindividuals which were believed to havepossession of assets which represent,directly of indirectly, the proceeds ofcrime.



Applications made during

2016During 2016, the following number ofapplications were made under Section 14and 14A of the Act and the PoC Act,respectively:

Applications under Section 14 & 14A CAB Act, 1996 &2005

Description Number2015 2016

Search warrants under Section 14 CAB Act, 1996 & 2005

80 153

Orders to make material available under Section 14A of the CAB Act, 1996 & 2005

173 241

Section 17Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act, 2010

Section 17(2) of the Criminal Justice(Money Laundering and TerroristFinancing) Act 2010 allows for membersof An Garda Síochána to obtain ordersthrough the District Court to restrain themovement of money held in bankaccounts.

During 2016, the Bureau has used thisorder on one hundred and twelveoccasions.

Such orders remain in force for a periodof four weeks which allows time for theInvestigating Member to carry out itsinvestigations to establish if this money isin fact being used in respect of anymoney laundering or terrorist financingoffences. After such time, that order willeither lapse or can be renewed by theInvestigating Member in the DistrictCourt.

These orders were obtained in respect ofseventeen separate targets currentlyunder investigation by the Bureau.

The total amount of funds restrained is in€excess of 4 million. However, one of the

€cases accounts for approximately 3.6million. As stated, these cases arecurrently under investigation.


Part ThreeActions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 & 2016

IntroductionThe Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 & 2016(“PoC Act”) provides the mechanismunder which the Bureau can apply to theHigh Court seeking to freeze or restrain aperson / entities dealing with a specificasset.

It further allows for the High Court todetermine, on the civil burden of proof,whether that asset represents, directly orindirectly, the proceeds of criminalconduct.

The PoC Act was amended in 2005 toallow the proceedings to be brought inthe name of the Bureau instead of itsChief Bureau Officer. Since then allapplications by the Bureau have beenbrought in the name of the Bureau.

The Court proceedings are commencedby way of an application to the HighCourt supported by sworn affidavits ofrelevant witnesses including, members ofAn Garda Síochána, other BureauOfficers and in relevant cases, staff fromlaw enforcement agencies in otherjurisdictions.

Section 2 of the PoC Act provides thatthe application may be brought on an ex-parte basis. This means that the Bureaumakes its application in the absence of arequirement to notify the person affected(the respondent) by the application at thatstage. The Section 2 order lasts for 21days unless an application under Section3 of the PoC Act is brought. The personaffected by the order is notified duringthis time.

In 2016, Section 3 proceedings werecommenced in all cases brought by theBureau during 2016 in which a Section2(1) order was made. Section 3 allows forthe longer term freezing of assets.

While Section 3 cases must commencewithin 21 days of the making of a Section2 order, it may take some considerabletime for the hearing of the Section 3 tocome before the High Court. Section 3hearings are heard with the respondentpresent during which the respondent hasthe opportunity to challenge the casebeing put forward in respect of theproperty in question.

In cases where the respondent hasinsufficient means to pay for legalrepresentation, the respondent mayapply to the court for a grant of legal aidunder a Legal Aid Scheme in place forthis purpose. This ensures that the rightsof the respondent are fully representedto the highest standards.

If it is ultimately shown to the satisfactionof the High Court following a Section 3hearing that the asset represents,directly or indirectly, the proceeds ofcriminal conduct then the court will makean order freezing the asset. This orderlasts a minimum of seven years duringwhich the respondent or any other partyclaiming ownership in respect of theproperty can make applications to havethe court order varied in respect of theproperty.


Part ThreeActions under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 & 2016

At the expiration of the period of sevenyears, the Bureau may then commenceproceedings to transfer the asset to theMinister for Public Expenditure andReform or other such persons as thecourt determines under Section 4 of theAct. During these proceedings, allrelevant parties are again notified andmay make applications to the court.

Where the period of seven years has notexpired, a consent disposal order underSection 4A of the Act may be effectedwith the consent of the respondent andthe court.

Amendment to PoC Act

Section 1A The PoC Act was amended by the PoC(Amendment) Act, 2016. This amendmentprovides that where a Bureau Officer isin a public place, or in another placewhere he is authorised or invited, or iscarrying out a search, and finds propertythat he believes to be the proceeds of

€crime with a value not less that 5,000,then that Officer may seize the propertyfor a period not exceeding 24 hours.

The Chief Bureau Officer may, during the24 hour period, authorise the detentionof the property for a period of up to 21days, provided he:

(a) is satisfied that there arereasonable grounds forsuspecting that the property, inwhole or in part, directly orindirectly, constitutes theproceeds of crime,

(b) is satisfied that there are groundsfor suspecting that the total

value of the property is not less€than 5,000,

(c) is satisfied that the Bureau iscarrying out an investigation intowhether or not there aresufficient grounds to make anapplication to the court for aninterim order or an interlocutoryorder in respect of the property,and

(d) has reasonable grounds forbelieving that the property, inwhole or in part, may in theabsence of an authorisation, bedisposed of or otherwise dealtwith, or have its value diminished,before such an application maybe made.

During 2016, the Bureau invoked itspowers under Section 1A of the PoC Actas outlined above.

Case 1The Bureau took possession of a carwhich belonged to a member of anOrganised Crime Group based in theWest of Dublin. During the 21 dayperiod, the Bureau was in a position tocarry out enquiries in respect of thepurchase of the vehicle and the Bureauwas able to successfully bring anapplication under Sections 2 & 7 of thePoC Act within the 21 day period.

At a hearing of the case, the Bureauobtained an order under Section 3 of theAct, which was a final determination thatthe vehicle was in fact, the proceeds ofcrime.



Case 2The Bureau also took possession of avehicle which was in possession of aperson believed to be involved in criminalconduct in the North Dublin area.

The Bureau successfully brought anapplication under Sections 2 & 7 of thePoC Act within the 21 day period.

As at 31st December 2016, this case isbefore the court and an application hasbeen made for an order under Section 3of the PoC Act.

Section 2(1) ReviewThirteen new cases were brought beforethe High Court during 2016. This figure isthe same figure for the year 2015.

New POC cases brought before the High Court

When analysed, the number of assetsover which an order was obtained underSection 2(1) decreased in comparison to2015 from thirty seven assets to thirty-four assets.

Assets over which Section 2(1) Orders made

During 2016, the Bureau tookproceedings in respect of a variety ofasset types. For profiling purposes, theassets are broken down into jewellery,property, vehicles, and cash/financialmatters.

Assets over which Section 2(1) Orders madeBreakdown of assets by asset type


2015 2016

5

10

13 13

2015 2016

10

20

30

3734

Jewellery Property Vehicle Cash/Financial

10

20

30

1 2 4

30

106

18

2015 2016


Valuation BreakdownThe value of the thirty four assets frozenunder Section 2 of the PoC Act during theyear 2016 was €643,063.07 This figuremay be broken down in the table below.

Analysis of Section 2 Order by asset type

Description €Jewellery 38,350.00Vehicle 106,345.00Cash/Financial 498,368.07Total 643,063.07

The figures in respect of jewellery andvehicles are based on the estimatedvalue placed by the Bureau on the assetat the time of making the applicationunder Section 2(1) of the PoC Act.

Value of assets frozen under Section 2(1)

The results for 2016 compared to 2015show the value of assets frozen underSection 2(1) has decreased from theprevious year where the value was€0.941 million. The value of assetsfluctuates depending on assets targetedin each case which can vary from highranging assets to low ranging assets.

Section 3 ReviewSection 3(1) orders are made at theconclusion of the hearing into whether anasset represents or not, the proceeds ofcriminal conduct. As such, the date andduration of the hearing of the matter is amatter outside of the Bureau’s control.

During 2016, eleven cases before theHigh Court had orders made underSection 3(1) to the value of€1,919,261.54. The number of casescommenced in 2016 is the same numberof cases commenced in 2015.

Number of cases in which Section 3(1) Orders made

The number of assets over which orderswere made by the High Court pursuant toSection 3(1) increased from eighteenassets in 2015 to thirty six in 2016.


2015 2016€0k

€300k

€600k

€900k

€941k

€643k 2015 2016

5

10

11 11


Assets over which Section 3(1) Orders made

Whilst there was an increase in assetsover which a Section 3(1) order was madein 2016, there was a substantial decreasein the value of the orders made. Thevalue of such orders decreased from€ €7.225 million in 2015 to 1.919 million in2016. This significant drop in value canbe explained by reference to two largecases in 2015; namely Abacha andSiriwan. Those cases were related toforeign bribery and corruption which had

€a combined value of approximately, 5.3million. The value of assets over which aSection 3(1) order was made in 2014 was€1.564 million and accordingly the valuefor 2016 has returned in line withprojections.

Analysis of Section 3 Order by asset type

Description €Property 230,000.00Jewellery 34,450.00Vehicle 51,745.00Cash/Financial 1,603,066.54Total 1,919,261.54

Value of assets frozen under Section 3(1)

A significant number of cases were heardbefore the High Court and for whichjudgment is outstanding for a specificperiod. The Bureau is liaising closely withthe courts to obtain judgment in thesecases which are expected to be deliveredin early 2017.

Section 3(3)Section 3(3) of the PoC Act provides foran application to be made to the courtwhile a Section 3(1) order is in force tovary or discharge the order. Theapplication can be made by therespondent in a case taken by the Bureauor by any other person claimingownership in the property. While Section3(3) largely contemplates the bringing ofan application by a respondent in a case,it also provides that victims of crime whocan demonstrate a proprietary interest inthe property frozen can make anapplication for the return of same.

Section 3(3) also provides for a person tomake a claim in regard to an asset overwhich a Section 3(1) order has beenmade whereby that person can seek thevariation or discharge of the freezing


2015 2016

10

20

30

18

36

2015 2016

€2m

€4m

€6m

€8m €7.225m

€1.919m


order if it can be shown to thesatisfaction of the court the asset inquestion is not the proceeds of criminalconduct. No order was made underSection 3(3) of the PoC Act during 2016.

Geographical BreakdownThe Bureau's remit covers investigationof proceeds of crime cases irrespectiveof the location of the assets.

During 2016, the Bureau obtained ordersover assets in respect of proceeds ofcrime in all of the large urban areas, ruralcommunities and foreign jurisdictions.

The Bureau remains committed toactively targeting assets which are theproceeds of criminal conduct and indeedwherever they are situated to the fullestextent under the PoC Act.

The Bureau is further developing itsnational coverage through theCommissioner of An Garda Síochána'srevised policy on the Tasking ofDivisional Asset Profilers. This willensure that there is a focus on localcriminal targets throughout the State foraction by the Bureau.

PropertyThe statutory aims and objectives of theBureau require that the Bureau takeappropriate action to prevent individuals,who are engaged in serious organisedcrime, benefit from such crime.

In cases where it is shown that the

property is the proceeds of criminalconduct, the statutory provision wherebyan individual enjoying the benefit of thoseproceeds may be deprived or denied thatbenefit, includes that he/she should bedivested of the property.

This policy of the Bureau may requirepursuing properties, notwithstanding thefact that in some cases the propertyremains in negative equity.

This is designed to ensure that thoseinvolved in serious organised crime arenot put in the advantageous position bybeing able to remain in the property andthereby benefit from the proceeds ofcrime.

VehiclesThe Bureau continues to note theinterest of those involved in seriousorganised crime in high value vehicles.However, during 2016 the Bureautargeted a number of mid-range to upper-range valued vehicles. This is, in part, aresponse to actions being taken by thoseinvolved in crime to purchase lowervalued vehicles in an attempt to avoiddetection.

The vehicles seized by the Bureau underSection 2(1) of the PoC Act during theyear 2016 were:

• BMW X5

• Audi A7

• Audi A4



• Audi A3

• Volkswagen Golf TDI

• Volkswagen Golf TDI (5 door)

Under Section 3(1) of the PoC Act, theBureau obtained orders against fivevehicles being:

1. Volkswagen Golf TDI

2. Volkswagen Passat

3. Audi A4

4. Audi A3

5. Volkswagen Golf TDI

Section 4(1) and 4ASection 4(1) provides for the transfer ofproperty to the Minister for PublicExpenditure and Reform. This Sectionrefers to assets which have been deemedto be the proceeds of criminal conduct,for a period of not less than seven years,and over which no valid claim has beenmade under Section 3(3) of the PoC Act.

Section 4A allows for a consent disposalorder to be made by the respondent in aCAB case, thus allowing the property tobe transferred to the Minister for PublicExpenditure and Reform in a periodshorter than seven years. This wasintroduced in the 2005 PoC Act.

Eleven cases were finalised andconcluded under Section 4(1) and 4A in2016.

Value of assets frozen under Section 4(1) and 4A

During the year 2016, a total of€1,412,920.41 was transferred to theMinister for Public Expenditure andReform under the PoC Act arising fromSection 4(1) and 4A disposals.

Whilst the figure for 2016 was down on2015, it remains higher than that in 2014

€ €which was 467,152 and 1,038,680 in2013.

Section 4(1) & 4A Breakdown

TypeNo. ofCases €

Section 4(1) 4 289,075.35Section 4A 7 1,123,845.06Total 11 1,412,920.41


2015 2016

€1m

€2m €1.64m€1.412m


Section 6Section 6 provides for the making of anorder by the court during the periodwhilst a Section 2(1) or 3(1) order is inforce to vary the order for the purpose ofallowing the respondent or any otherparty:

1. a discharge of reasonable livingor other necessary expenses; or

2. carry on a business, trade,profession or other occupationrelating to the property.

During 2016 one such order was made tothe value of €5,000.

Value of assets orders under Section 6

This compares to 2015 where no suchorders were made.

Section 7Section 7 provides for the appointment,by the court, of a Receiver whose dutiesinclude either to preserve the value of, ordispose of, property which is alreadyfrozen under Section 2 or Section 3orders.

In 2016, the Bureau obtainedreceivership orders in regard to thirtynine assets. In every case the Receiverappointed by the court was the BureauLegal Officer. These cases involvedproperties, cash, money in bankaccounts, motor vehicles and watches. Insome receivership cases, the High Courtmade orders for possession and sale bythe Receiver. A receivership ordercannot be made unless a Section 2 orSection 3 order is already in place.


2015 2016€0

€1,000

€2,000

€3,000

€4,000

€5,000

€0

€5,000


Statement of Receivership Accounts

Amount € £STG US$

Opening balance receivership accounts 01/01/2016 11,765,193.45 470,954.23 651,759.60

Amounts realised, inclusive of interest and operational advances 1,489,067.96 47.86 480.27

Payments out, inclusive of paymentsto Exchequer and operational receivership expenditure

1,686,453.12 0.00 114.21

Closing balance receivership accounts 31/12/2016 11,567,808.29 471,002.09 652,125.66


Part FourRevenue actions by the Bureau

OverviewThe role of the Revenue Bureau Officersattached to the Bureau is to performduties in accordance with all RevenueActs and Regulations to ensure that theproceeds of crime or suspected crime,are subject to tax. This involves thegathering of all available informationfrom the agencies which comprise theBureau. This includes the Office of theRevenue Commissioners and informationfrom this Office can be obtained inaccordance with the Disclosures ofCertain Information for Taxation andOther Purposes Act 1996.

In addition, during 2016, the Office of theRevenue Commissioners referred twentysix cases to the Bureau to be consideredas suitable for investigation. Each casewas comprehensively profiled.

On consideration of all the cases, it wasdecided that nineteen cases came withinthe statutory remit of the Bureau and arenow the subject of a full investigation.

Tax FunctionsThe following is a summary of actionstaken by the Bureau during 2016 and anupdate of the status of appeals taken.

Tax AssessmentsRevenue Bureau Officers are empoweredto make assessments to tax underSection 58 of the Taxes ConsolidationAct 1997 (hereinafter referred to as theTCA 1997) - the charging section.

As part of any Bureau investigation, theRevenue Bureau Officer will investigatethe tax position of all those linked withthat investigation with a view toassessing their tax liability, whereappropriate. Investigations vary in termsof size and complexity.

During 2016, a total of twenty sixindividuals were assessed to tax resultingin a total tax assessed figure undervarious taxheads of €11.148m.

Tax AppealsBudget 2013 provided for thecommencement of a consultationprocess for the reform of the tax appealprocess and various stakeholdersincluding Revenue, made submissions byJanuary 2014.

The consultation process led to theenactment of the Finance (Tax Appeals)Act 2015. This Act came into effect on21st March 2016 and substantiallychanged the Office of the AppealCommissioners and the appeals process.This Act established the Tax AppealsCommission (TAC) and sets out its duties,functions and responsibilities.

In relation to the appeal process itself,this Act inserts Part 40A to the TCA1997. It makes significant changes to theappeal process and it establishes a clearindependent role for the TAC. It alsoplaces greater responsibility upon theCommissioners, for example, theacceptance or rejection of an appeal,communicating directly with theappellant, the preparation of a “casestated” in respect of High Court


Part FourRevenue actions of the Bureau

proceedings and the publication of ananonymised version of alldeterminations.

The introduction of this legislationprovided for transitional arrangements todeal with appeals which were alreadywith the Inspector of Taxes but not yetreferred to the Appeal Commissionersand appeals which had been referred tothe Appeal Commissioners but as at 21st

March 2016 had not been heard.

Prior to the introduction of the Finance(Tax Appeals) Act 2015, the appealprocess was governed in accordancewith the provisions as set out in Part 40TCA 1997.

Appeals to the Appeal CommissionersAs at 1st January 2016, appeals in respectof nineteen cases were pending beforethe Appeal Commissioners.

In the period to 21st March 2016, fourapplications for appeals were received,two of which were correctly invoked. Theremaining two were refused inaccordance with Section 933 of the TCA1997.

Also in this period, three appeals werewithdrawn and determinations weremade by the Appeal Commissioners inrespect of three cases. As there was noattendance by or on behalf of theappellant, the assessments wereconfirmed.

As at 21st March 2016, there were fifteenopen appeals and these were passed tothe TAC.

In the period from 21st March 2016 to 31st

December 2016, appeal applications inrespect of seventeen cases weresubmitted to the TAC. TheCommissioners have accepted the appealin respect of one case and a decisionregarding the status of the remainingsixteen cases was awaited, at year end2016.

As at 31st December 2016, there were atotal of thirty two cases awaitinghearing / decision.

Refusal Appeals:As at 1st January 2016, appeals in respectof three cases were pending. Prior to21st March 2016, the appeal in respect ofone case was withdrawn and theremaining two appeals were passed tothe TAC.

In the period from 21st March 2016 to 31st

December 2016, appeals in respect oftwo cases which had been refused by theInspector immediately prior to 21st March2016 were further appealed to the TAC.

As at 31st December 2016, there werefour cases awaiting hearing.

Appeals to the Circuit Court As at 1st January 2016, there were threecases awaiting hearing before the CircuitCourt. During the year, the appealhearing which had commenced in 2015 in



respect of one case was finalised and thedecision of the Appeal Commissioner wasupheld.

As at 31st December 2016, there weretwo cases awaiting hearing.

A significant change with the introductionof the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015 isthe ending of an appellant's right toappeal the decision of the AppealCommissioner to the Circuit Court. Theonly appeal which can take place otherthan that to the TAC is to the High Courton a point of Law.

CollectionsRevenue Bureau Officers are empoweredto take all necessary actions for thepurpose of collecting tax liabilities asassessed and which have become finaland conclusive. Revenue Bureau Officershold the powers of the Collector Generaland will pursue tax debts through allavailable routes. Collection methodsinclude:

• –the issue of demands Section961 TCA 1997;

• –power of attachment Section1002 TCA 1997;

• –Sheriff action Section 960(L)TCA 1997; and

• –High Court proceedings Section 960(I) TCA 1997.

RecoveriesTax recovered by the Bureau during 2016

€amounted to 2.106m from thirty eightindividuals / entities.

DemandsDuring 2016, tax demands (inclusive ofinterest) served in accordance withSection 961 TCA 1997 in respect ofeighteen individuals / entities amountedto €5.023m.

Circuit Court: Circuit Court proceedings were initiatedin the Circuit Court in respect of three

€cases in the sum of 131k.

High Court:High Court proceedings for the recoveryof tax and also interest in the sum of€2.144m were initiated in twelve cases.

Judgements:High Court Judgements were obtainedagainst twelve individuals for tax

€liabilities totalling 10.578m.

Judgement mortgage affidavits werereceived in four cases with sixteenproperties.

One well charging proceedingcommenced in 2016. Two cases werefound to be well charged during 2016.

Prosecutions

Thomas MurphyIn October 2015, following a lengthy trial,Mr. Thomas Murphy, Ballybinaby,Hackballscross, Dundalk, Co. Louth wasfound guilty of tax offences in respect of



the years 1995 to 2004. The sentencehearing was held on 12th February 2016and on 26th February 2016, Mr. Murphywas sentenced to eighteen monthsimprisonment.

Following his trial, Mr. Murphy appealedthe decision to the Court of Appeal. Thisappeal was heard in 2016 with thedecision of the court to be delivered in2017.

Customs & Excise functionsThe Customs & Excise (C&E) functions inthe Bureau support all investigations byidentifying any issues of Customsrelevance within the broad range of C&Erelated legislation, regulations,information and intelligence.

Serious and organised crime groups inevery jurisdiction attempt to breach bothCustoms regulations and Exciseregulations in their attempts to makesubstantial profits while depriving theExchequer of funds and having anegative impact on society in general.The Customs functions at ports andairports, in particular, support theBureau's investigations into the cross-jurisdictional aspects of crime andcriminal profits.

In Ireland, as in many countries, theexistence of a land border with anotherjurisdiction, where tax rates on variouscommodities are different, has providedan incentive for serious organised crimegroups to engage in smuggling andassociated activities. These types of

crime result in significant loss to theExchequer while providing significantgains to those crime gangs.

Throughout 2016, the Bureau continuedto monitor the activities of criminalorganisations involved in the illicit tradein mineral oils, in conjunction with theRevenue Customs Service and An GardaSíochána, as a means of sustaining thecollective successes of recent years ininterrupting that particular criminalactivity.

In 2016, the Bureau continued to carryout investigations in the area of VRTauthorisations granted to car dealers(Section 136 Finance Act, 1992). TheBureau monitored, reviewed and refusedsuch authorisations in cases whereorganised crime groups had, or wereattempting to infiltrate and impact onlegitimate trade, with consequentialpotential loss of VRT to the exchequer.

The Bureau also continued to deprivespecific individuals of valuable vehicleswhich were in their possession andcontravened VRT regulations (Section141, Finance Act 2001). In one example,under “Operation Croft”, a joint initiativein conjunction with the Garda NationalDrugs & Organised Crime Bureau, theBureau detained over sixty vehicles fromone organised crime group alone, withthe Bureau seizing and depriving thoseinvolved of over €¾ million worth ofstock for VRT offences, under theprovisions of Section 141(1) Finance Act2001, and initiating a further €70,000 infines and penalties.



Fighting organised crime groupsoperating across borders requirescooperation among competentauthorities on both sides of the border.Such cooperation extends beyondintelligence sharing and includes theplanning and implementation of specificjoint operations on an international multi-agency and multi-disciplinary platform. Insuch cases, every aspect of mutualassistance legislation, whether it beCustoms to Customs, or Police to Police,is utilised by the Bureau.

Customs Officers attached to the Bureautake every opportunity to liaise and workwith colleagues in other Customsservices internationally to improveeffectiveness against organised crimegroups. Similarly, the Bureau worksclosely in this jurisdiction with Revenue'sCustoms Service, in order to use all theState's resources in the most efficientway in tackling criminal activity.



Revenue tables

Table 1: Outcome of Appeals at Appeal Commissioner Stage

Description

No.of

casesOpening Appeals as at 01/01/2016 19Appeals lodged 4Appeals refused 2Appeals determined by Appeal Commissioner 3Appeals Withdrawn 3Open Appeals as at 21/03/16 & referred to the TAC 15Appeal Applications to the TAC 17Appeals Admitted by TAC 1Admission Decision from TAC awaited 16Appeals determined by TAC 0Open Appeals as at 31/12/2016 32

Table 2: Outcome of Appeals refused by the Bureau

Description

No.of

casesOpening Appeals as at 01/01/2016 3Appeals Withdrawn 1Open Appeals as at 21/03/16 & referred to the TAC 2Appeals Refused 2Refusals Appealed 2Open Appeals as at 31/12/2016 4

Table 3: Outcome of Circuit Court Appeals

Description

No.of

casesOpening Appeals as at 01/01/2016 3Appeals determined by Circuit Court 1Open Appeals as at 31/12/2016 2



Table 4: Tax Assessments

TaxheadTax €M

2015Tax €M

2016

No ofassessments

2015

No ofassessments

2016Income Tax 4.655 10.403 138 190Capital Gains Tax 0.037 0.254 1 5Value Added Tax 0.678 0.241 28 4PAYE/PRSI 0.431 0.165 1 1RCT - 0.085 - 3CAT 0.206 - 4 -Excise 0.273 - 1 -Totals 6.280 11.148 173 203

Table 5: Tax and Interest Collected

TaxheadAmount €M

2015Amount €M

2016No of cases

2015No of cases

2016Income Tax 1.520 1.914 38 35Value Added TaxVRTCapital Gains Tax

0.3610.0510.106

0.192--

412

3--

Totals 2.038 2.106 45 38

Table 6: Tax and Interest demanded

Taxhead

Tax €M Interest €M Total €M No. of cases

2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016Income Tax 3.226 3.079 2.025 1.489 5.251 4.568 16 12CGT 0.215 0.063 0.106 0.057 0.321 0.120 1 2VAT 0.869 0.224 0.250 0.103 1.119 0.327 5 3PAYE/PRSI - 0.006 - 0.002 - 0.008 - 1Totals 4.310 3.372 2.381 1.651 6.691 5.023 22 18


Part FiveSocial Welfare actions by the Bureau

OverviewThe Bureau takes action under the SocialWelfare Consolidation Act 2005,pursuant to its functions as set out inSection 5.1(c) and 5.1(d) of the Act.Social Welfare Bureau Officersinvestigate and determine entitlement tosocial welfare payments. Arising from anexamination of cases by Bureau Officers,actions pursuant to the Social Welfareremit of the Bureau was initiated againstseventy persons in 2016.

SavingsAs a direct result of investigationsconducted by Social Welfare BureauOfficers in 2016, a number of personshad their payments either terminated orreduced. These actions resulted in atotal saving to the Exchequer of€269,981.60 . The various headingsunder which these savings were achievedare listed on page 36.

OverpaymentsThe investigations conducted alsoresulted in the identification andassessment of overpayments againstindividuals. An overpayment is describedas a payment received by an individualover a period(s) for which that personhad no entitlement to make the claim.Accordingly the payments received inrespect of the claim created a debt to theDepartment of Social Protection. As aresult, demands were issued against anumber of persons for the repayment ofthe Social Welfare debts ranging inindividual value from €436.50 to€135,554.20.

During 2016, Overpayments Assessedand Demanded amounted to€1,054,161.27, a breakdown of which arelisted on page 36.

RecoveriesThe Bureau utilises a number of meansby which to recover Social Welfare debtsfrom individuals.

The methods include payments by way oflump sum and/or instalment standingorder. Deductions of up to 15% of aperson’s current social welfare paymentscan be made to recover debts. This is anew provision for debt recovery and wasenacted by Section 13 of the SocialWelfare Act 2012.

The Bureau was instrumental in theintroduction of additional powers for therecovery of social welfare debts by wayof Notice of Attachment proceedings.This new legislative power is provided forin Section 15 of the Social Welfare andPensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Actof 2014.

As a result of these actions, the total sumreturned to the Exchequer amounted to€297,430.12, a breakdown of which arelisted on page 36.

AppealsThere is an independent agency, theSocial Welfare Appeals Office (SWAO),who provide a service to persons who arenot satisfied with determinations madeby Officers of the Department of SocialProtection on questions relating to theirentitlement to Social Welfare payments.This agency is headed by a Chief AppealsOfficer (CAO).

In 2016, there were three appealsinitiated against determinations made by



Social Welfare Officers attached to theBureau.

The CAO certified that the ordinaryappeals procedure was inadequate tosecure the effective processing of theseappeals and directed that the appellantssubmit their appeals to the Circuit CivilCourt.

Two cases have lodged appeals in theCircuit Civil Court. In another case, aJudicial Review of the CAO's decision torefer to the Circuit Court was lost.

Section 5.1(c) of the ActCase 1A well known family engaged in drugtrafficking for many years in theSouthern Region. An investigation intodrug trafficking and the moneylaundering of the profits derived fromthat criminal activity was conducted byGardaí from the Anglesea Street GardaStation, Cork, led by DetectiveSuperintendent John Healy.

Following an investigation and review ofthe material uplifted, interviews wereconducted by Social Welfare BureauOfficers. In total, eleven members of thisfamily had their Social Welfare claimsreviewed, resulting in decisions toterminate payments and assessoverpayments.

€In total, in excess of 426,000 was raised€in overpayments, and a further 270,000

in savings was achieved due toreductions and cessations in payments.

€To date, over 23,000 has been

recovered with further monies expectedin 2017.

Case 2Another organised crime family was dealtwith in the South Eastern Region. Thisinvestigation related to five individuals.Savings as a result of the closing ofexisting Social Welfare claims amounted€to 54,000.

Overpayments in relation to this family€amounted to in excess of 350,000 of

which monies are being recovered atpresent.

Section 5.1(d) of the ActCase 3An individual, who is currently thesubject of an ongoing investigation by theBureau, made a claim for State NonContributory Pension in 2016. This wasdealt with by the Bureau under Section5(1)(d) of the Act, 1996. His claim for aNon Contributory Old Age Pension wasunsuccessful and was subsequentlydisallowed by a Deciding Officer on thegrounds that he had failed to produce therequired and requested documentationto substantiate his viewpoint that he hadno means to support himself. While nosaving was achieved, he was denied apayment on the basis that he could notestablish his entitlement.

Case 4Another individual from the NorthernRegion was also referred to the Bureauunder Section 5(1)(d). He failed to engagewith the Social Welfare Inspector whoreviewed his means based on theinformation obtained from searches of



the individuals home and other businesspremises. A Natural Justice letter wassent to him and at this point he engaged asolicitor. While the case is ongoing, he isnot currently in receipt of a SocialWelfare payment.



Social Welfare Savings

Scheme type2015 Saving

€2016 Saving

€Carers Allowance 39,535.20 47,695.20Disability Allowance 194,180.80 25,568.00Jobseeker's Allowance 50,208.00 106,577.60One-parent family payment 167,472.40 90,140.80*BASI 31,725.00 0.00Totals 483,121.40 269,981.60

Social Welfare Overpayments

Scheme type2015 Over-

payment€

2016 Over-payment

€Carers Allowance 143,677.20 161,258.40Disability Allowance 131,841.90 149,606.10Jobseeker's Allowance 524,987.65 660,542.99One-parent family payment 249,166.47 81,378.78Other*BASI

-136,313.67

1375.00-

Totals 1,185,986.89 1,054,161.27

Social Welfare Recovered

Scheme type2015 Recovered

€2016 Recovered

€Carer's allowance 55,122.00 41,665.36Disability Allowance 30,737.17 50,486.88Jobseeker's Allowance 62,388.45 153,424.90One-parent family payment 37,106.70 50,852.98Other - 1,000.00Totals 185,354.32 297,430.12

* A Basic Supplementary Welfare Allowance (commonly referred to as BASI) provides a basic weekly allowance to eligible people who have little or no income.


Part SixCriminal prosecutions arising from investigations of the Bureau

IntroductionArising from investigations conducted bythe Bureau, pursuant to its statutoryremit, evidence of suspected breaches ofcriminal offences was uncovered and, asa result, a person was charged on thedirection of the Director of PublicProsecutions (hereinafter referred to as“the DPP”) with suspected offencesunder the TCA, 1997;

Tax related offences

Case 1This investigation commenced in 2007and the hearing of the trial was held atthe Special Criminal Court in 2015.Following a full hearing of the case, theperson was found guilty of nine suchoffences and the case was adjourned to2016 for sentencing.

In 2016 before the Special CriminalCourt, the person was sentenced toeighteen months imprisonment. Anappeal was lodged by the person againstthe severity of the sentence and theconviction. The appeal was heard in2016.

Operation LampThis is an investigation into members ofan organised crime gang (OCG) which arebased primarily in Spain with a number ofassociates based in Ireland. During 2016,the Bureau carried out a number ofsearches on professional premises andprivate residences targeting this group inand around the Dublin Metropolitianarea. During the course of the searches,a large number of vehicles and high valuegoods were seized. As a result of this, an

application was made in the High Courtunder the PoC Act to restrain all theassets seized as well as a number ofprivate residences. It is the belief of theBureau that these items represent theproceeds of their criminal conduct.

Since the order was received, the Bureauhas gone back to seek permission to sellthese vehicles in order to preserve theirvalue. The court has granted this orderand has appointed a Receiver over theproperty with a view to selling them.

During the course of the investigation, anumber of people were arrested forsuspected offences of money launderingand files are being prepared for the DPP.

Operation GriffinIn February 2016, fourteen members ofan organised crime gang known as the“Rathkeale Rovers” were convicted in theUK of a museum theft plot. This OCG hadmasterminded a series of raids onmuseums and auction houses across theUK.

Between November 2011 and April 2012,Chinese artefacts and rhinoceros hornsworth millions of pounds were targeted ina number of incidents. These comprisedof two thefts and an attempted theft fromDurham University Oriental Museum, arobbery at Norwich Castle Museum inNorfolk, another robbery at GorringesAuction House in East Sussex and aburglary at Fitzwilliam Museum inCambridge.



Investigations were launched by localpolice forces in the UK and a number ofpeople convicted for their parts incarrying out the thefts. The Bureau wascarrying out parallel investigations intothis OCG and had uncovered evidencelinking members of this gang to the UKcrimes.

‘Operation Griffin’, an investigation led byDurham Constabulary andCambridgeshire Police and supported bythe National Crime Agency and theNational Police Chief’s Council, wastherefore launched in June 2012 to bringthose behind the conspiracy to justice.This investigation was also supported bythe Bureau, and in early 2016 an officerof the Bureau gave evidence inBirmingham Crown Court.

Daniel ‘Turkey’ O’Brien, 45; John ‘Kerry’O’Brien, 26; Michael Hegarty, 43; andRichard ‘Kerry’ O’Brien Junior, 31, allfrom Cambridgeshire but with links toRathkeale, Limerick were found guilty ofconspiracy to steal, following a lengthytrial at Birmingham Crown Court.

Eight other men, aged between 33 and68, from Cambridgeshire, London,Southend-on-Sea and Wolverhampton,were found guilty at three previous trials,all at Birmingham Crown Court. Twoothers, one aged 28 from Kent, and theother aged 46 from Belfast, pleadedguilty to the charges in March 2016 andJanuary 2017. All 14 men were chargedin connection with all the incidents.

Senior Investigating Officer for theoperation, Detective SuperintendentAdrian Green from DurhamConstabulary, said:

“I am extremely pleased with the verdictspassed today and over the previous year.

Because of the variations which can begiven by auction houses, the total valueof the items targeted comes to anywhere

£ £between 18m and 57m. This illustratesjust how massively profitable this tradewas viewed by the gang.

All the hard work put in by everyoneinvolved has paid off. Firstly, those thatcarried out the burglaries were caughtand convicted by local officers.

What followed was a very long andcomplex investigation to capture andbring to justice those who commissionedand planned the jobs.

I hope this sends out a message thatnobody is untouchable.”



Chief Constable Mick Creedon, theNational Policing Lead for OrganisedCrime said:

"This complex and lengthy operationresulted from initial work done by theDurham and Cambridgeshire forces whouncovered the offending of asophisticated criminal networkresponsible for a series of high valueoffences across the country."

The Bureau Officer involved in thisinvestigaton received a commendationfrom the UK National Police Chiefs'Council in September 2016 for hisprofessionalism and personalcommitment to Operation Griffin whichsupported the successful conviction anddisruption of the OCG.

The Bureau continues to investigate thisOCG.


Part SevenSignificant Court Judgments during 2016

During 2016, written judgments weredelivered by the courts in the followingcases:

1. CAB v. Michael Murphy Juniorand Michael Murphy Senior (18th

February 2016, [2016] IECA 40)Court of Appeal.

2. CAB v. Marvis Okungbowa &Another (11th April 2016).

3. CAB v. SR & Christopher Russell(7th June 2016), High Court.

4. CAB v. Niall O'Donoghue(otherwise Simon Gold, AngloIrish Global Ltd & Kurt Lauridsen)(9th June 2016), High Court.

For brevity, the full text of the judgmentsat 3 and 4 are included. The judgments at1 and 2 may be obtained from the CourtsService.

CAB v. SR & Christopher Rus-sell7th June 2016, High Court: Fullam J,High Court Record No.2013/009/CAB (Approved)

–Proceeds of crime Proceeds of Crime– –Act, 1996 & 2005 Family Home

Section 7 Receivership

JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE FULLAMDELIVERED ON THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE2016

Introduction

1. The applicant seeks an order pursuant to Section 7(1)(b) of the PoC

Act appointing Declan O’Reillyreceiver with power of sale over thescheduled property the subject of aSection 3 order made by this court(Bermingham J.) on the 16th July 2014.The application is grounded on theaffidavit of Mr O’Reilly of 6th February2015.

2. Section 7 (1)(b) of the POC Actprovides:

(1) Where an interim order or aninterlocutory order is in force, thecourt may at any time appoint a

—receiver

(b) in accordance with the court’sdirections, to manage keeppossession or dispose of orotherwise deal with any propertyin respect of which he or she isappointed, subject to suchexceptions and conditions (if any)as may be specified by the court,and may require any personhaving possession or control ofproperty in respect of which thereceiver is appointed to givepossession of it to the receiver.

Background

3. The respondents are husband andwife. They have two school-goingchildren aged fourteen and seven.The property is registered in themaiden name of the first respondent.The second respondent did notcontest the Section 3 application.

4. On the 16th July 2014, Bermingham J.further ordered, in the interest of


Part SevenSignificant court judgments during 2016

justice, that, should a disposal orderpursuant to Section 4 be made, thefirst respondent was entitled tobenefit from the net proceeds to thevalue of 12.5 %. The learned judgealso gave the applicant liberty tonotify the mortgagee (Ulster Bank)and the insurers (Aviva) of themaking of the Section 3 order. Thelearned judge adjourned the part ofthe applicant’s motion relating to theappointment of a receiver to thefollowing 13th of October for mention.

5. By affidavit of 9th October 2014, Mr.O’Reilly informed the court ofinformation which he averred wasrelevant to the adjourned applicationfor the appointment of a receiver. Hestated that the purpose of areceivership was to preserve theproperty the subject of thereceivership for the benefit of theparty ultimately entitled and that avital aspect of preservation was therequirement that the scheduledproperty be validly and properlyinsured.

He informed the court that, on 2nd

October 2014, the applicant wasmade aware by Aviva InsuranceLimited that the household insuranceon the property had lapsed on the18th August 2013. The Ulster Bank,as an interested party on the policy,had been notified of the lapse andwere requested to furnish an up todate position on mortgagerepayments. By letter dated 6th

October, 2014, the applicantinformed the solicitors for the firstrespondent that the applicant hadbecome aware of the lapse of the

insurance policy and soughtconfirmation by return thatalternative insurance was in place.

The Bureau had also requesteddetails of the up to date position inrelation to repayments on themortgage. By email dated 8th

October, 2014, Ulster Bank advisedthat the “responsibility for buildingsinsurance lies solely with thecustomer”. In relation to mortgagerepayments, the Bank advised thatrepayments for September andOctober had been made, but theAugust payment had been missed.

6. In her replying affidavit made on 10th

November 2014, the first respondentstated that it was the purpose of thelegislation to preserve the propertyrather than dispossess her. She saidthat she had taken all reasonablesteps to ensure that insurance was inplace. She had obtained insurancewith 123.ie (underwritten by RSA) inrespect of which she paid a premium

€of 327.78 on 8th October and hadforwarded a copy of the insurancepolicy by email to the Bureau on 10th

October. She concluded by sayingthat she was now aware of thenecessity to keep insurance up todate.

7. The application to appoint thereceiver was adjourned on a numberof occasions. On the morning of 8th

December 2014, the court wasinformed that 123.ie / RSA wasdiscontinuing cover. Later in theafternoon, the court was informedthat the first respondent had secured



insurance with Chill Insurance whichwas part of the Zurich Group.

The court requested confirmationfrom counsel for the first respondentthat the Section 3 Order had beendisclosed to Chill. On 9th Decemberthe first respondent provided a copyof the Chill policy to the Bureau byemail. Following further adjournmentthe court was informed on 30th

January 2015 that Chill waswithdrawing cover.

8. In his affidavit dated 6th February2015, Mr. O’Reilly asked the court, onbehalf of the Bureau, to have himselfappointed receiver of the propertywith power of sale.

9. At para. 7 of his affidavit, Mr. O’Reillystated:

As at the date of swearing hereof, theproperty is uninsured. Two separateproviders of insurance havediscontinued insurance cover for theproperty. It is a source of greatconcern that the property remainsuninsured, particularly incircumstances where the firstrespondent gave evidence during theSection 3 hearing on 5th June 2014that the windows at the propertywere smashed and bullet proof glasswas installed at the property in oraround February 2013. It is my beliefthat against that background ofdamage having been done to theproperty in the past and the propertybeing uninsured at present, theproperty is potentially at risk if anorder is not made pursuant toSection 7 of the Act.

10. In her replying affidavit of 12th

February, the first respondent saidthat the property constituted herfamily home and if the order soughtis made there would be a significantimpact on her two children, thenaged 13 and 6 years. She said hereldest child had been diagnosed asdyslexic. He receives learningsupport and has been assigned aSpecial Needs Assistant who assistshim in his daily classroom tasks atschool.

She repeated that she agreed thatthe purpose of Section 7 of the PoCAct was to preserve the propertyrather than to dispossess herselfand her family. At para. 13 she saysthat insurance is just one factor inthe determination as to whether areceiver should be appointed underSection 7. She says that the courtin making the Section 3 orderclearly envisaged that she wouldremain in the property during theseven year period and that the onusto show that a receiver wasnecessary rested with the Bureau.

She says that no good reason hasbeen set forward to suggest there isany real risk to the property. Shesays she has kept the property ingood repair. The windows that weresmashed have been subsequentlyrepaired by herself and the propertyhas remained in good condition eversince. She said there is noapprehended risk that she woulddispose of the property either bysale or destruction. In thecircumstances, she says theappropriate safeguard in this



respect was for her to give anundertaking not to deliberatelycause the property to be devalued.A breach of such undertaking wouldamount to a contempt of court andshe understood the consequencesof same.

Finally she states at para. 16, thatthe application to appoint a receiverwith power of sale is an attempt bythe applicant to circumvent theoperation of the statutory scheme.

In this regard, she states that shehas a right to apply within the sevenyear period for an order underSection 3(3). She states-

“Put another way, should thissafeguard not be available theconstitutionality of the legislation asfound by the Supreme Court in M. v.Ireland may be called into question “

11. In his supplemental affidavit of 19th

February 2015, Mr. O’Reilly statesat para. 9:-

“I say that best internationalpractice for the preservation ofproperty where a property has beenfound to be the proceeds of crimefollowing a full hearing is for theproperty to be sold and the netproceeds placed in an interestbearing account. The appointmentof a receiver where the respondentsin the proceedings continue toreside in the property withoutinsurance on the property isregarded as the worst manner ofprotection. It is the highest risk as itexposes the receiver to proceedings

being taken against him/her, but alsoon the ground that it offers noprotection to the property.”

12. Mr. O’Reilly states that the onlyinsurers who have been able toprovide insurance for propertiesover which a receiver has beenappointed with a power of sale isAON, which had recently beenacquired by RSA. He said that in theinterest of pursuing all avenues hesubmitted a proposal form to AONon which he noted that the firstrespondent had been refusedinsurance on the very property byRSA. He said that on 19th Februaryhe was advised that insurance on theproperty was declined.

13. Mr. O’Reilly said that the firstrespondent had informed theapplicant that there were mortgage

€arrears of 8,622.22 on the property.

The first respondent had given noindication as to how those arrearswould be dealt with, whether sheproposed to discharge same orwhether future payments would bemade. Mr. O’Reilly states that bywithholding some of the mortgagepayments, the first respondentwould be reducing the remainingequity in the property and that indefault on payment of a mortgagethere would be sufficient grounds fora mortgagee to seek sale of theproperty. The costs of sale wouldfurther reduce the equity in theproperty.



14. In conclusion, Mr. O’Reilly suggeststhat it may be appropriate to appointa receiver immediately but withdirections that he shall not takepossession until the expiration oflimited time.

An alternative to appointing areceiver would be for the firstrespondent to pay the value of theproperty into court in the absence ofinsurance. He submits that anyother form of arrangement would beunworkable.

15. In her affidavit of 27th February2015, the first respondent contendsthat international comparisons ofbest practice are neither relevant,nor necessarily a guide, in dealingwith Irish legislation. She points tothe fact that Mr. O’Reilly did notmention what happens in a situationwhere a property is found to bepartially, or indeed, mostly theproceeds of crime.

In relation to Mr. O’ Reilly’sargument that there would be a riskof proceedings being taken against areceiver, if a respondent wereallowed to continue to reside in theproperty without insurance, the firstrespondent offers to give anundertaking not to take proceedingsagainst the receiver. She says shewill discharge all necessaryexpenses involved in the day to dayrunning of the property, as she hadbeen doing up to the intervention ofthe insurance issue and states thatshe is in a position to discharge theinsurance payments as well.

She alleges that no real effort hasbeen made by the receiver to obtaininsurance. As regards mortgagearrears, she says that while the bankhas sought repayment of arrears,she has been discharging themortgage payments of approximately€620 per month and states that “thisarrangement seems to satisfy thebank as they have made no efforts toseek to repossess the property”.

She points out that the application tocourt was initially based oninsurance but that the applicant hasnow sought to open up a secondaryline of attack in relation to themortgage arrears which is not amatter of genuine concern.

As regards Mr. O’ Reilly’s suggestionthat the first respondent pay thevalue of the property into court, shesays she does not have any fundsremotely equivalent to the value ofthe property.

She says she is not involved incriminal conduct. She is the motherof two children and it is not clearwhether, in the current housingcrisis, she will be able to securealternative accommodation eitherprivately or by means of localauthority housing.

Finally, she says that she is willing toengage insofar as is possible toobtain insurance but cannot do sobecause, she alleges, the applicanthas made false statements to theinsurance companies. In the



circumstances, she asks the court torefuse to make any order in respectof the Section 7 application.

Discussion

The judgment of Bermingham J.

16. At para. 21 of his judgment deliveredon the 16th July 2014, havingconcluded that the entirety of theevidence before the court supportedthe conclusion that the property inquestion represented the proceedsof crime, the learned judge went onto consider the issue of a seriousrisk of injustice. He said:

21. “It is therefore necessary to considerwhether making the order soughtwould give rise to a serious risk ofinjustice. In that regard, there are anumber of factors that requireconsideration. First of all, it isnecessary to recall that the s. 3 orderunder the Act of 1996 is a freezingorder and that there will be a furtheropportunity to address the issue atthe disposal stage, that is the s. 4stage under the same Act. However,at this stage, I accept that Ms. R. mayhave made some degree ofcontribution through whatever verylimited earnings she had as ahairdresser and through her childbenefit payments. I am alsoprepared to accept that Ms. R. as astay at home mother, or a largelystay-at- home mother, would havecontributed to the upkeep of thehousehold indirectly. I also cannotignore the fact that the property is amodest one in what would once havebeen described as a local authorityarea. I make that observation

because it seems to me that quitedifferent considerations would applyif one was looking at so called trophyhomes”.

22. “Having regard to all thesefactors, I believe that there issubstance in the argument that itwould be disproportionate andsomewhat oppressive, if in sevenyears time the property was to besold at a time when her younger sonwould still be only twelve years old,and if Ms. R. were to be totallyexcluded from any entitlementwhatever to benefit. In a situationwhere I have not had reliableevidence as to the extent of thecontribution made by Ms. R., I find itextremely difficult to construct a justresponse. Doing the best I can, Ihave decided that the interest ofjustice would be served if she was tobenefit to the extent of 12.5 % of theequity that exists in the property inC. Road at the time of disposal. I willdiscuss with counsel what orderswould best give effect to what I havein mind”.

17. It is clear that as of the date ofjudgment, 16th July 2014,Bermingham J. was not aware thatthat the property was uninsured orthe extent of mortgage arrears.When the learned judge was madeaware on 13th October 2014 thatcover had been provided by 123.ie,he adjourned the matter to seewhether the insurance cover wouldin effect be continued following thedisclosure to 123.ie of the making ofthe Section 3 order. As statedpreviously the learned judge was



elevated to the Court of Appeal anddid not retain seisin of the case.

18. The present position is that theproperty is uninsured and there aresignificant mortgage arrearsirrespective of which the firstrespondent has not provided thecourt with any indication as to howshe proposes to discharge same. Inthe circumstances, the value of theproperty is at risk of devaluation ontwo grounds, accidental ordeliberate damage on the one handand diminution or destruction of theequity by continued non payment ofmortgage arrears on the other.

The family home

19. In F. McK v.TH and JH, Feeney J.considered the issue of making aSection 4 disposal order in respectof the family home;

“The fact that the notice party andher family need a home cannot ofitself operate to defeat the publicinterest requirement identified in thelegislation of depriving a person ofproperty representing the proceedsof crime. There is no basis fortreating a person in a position suchas the notice party and her family ona more favourable basis than afamily who lose their home as aresult of a possession orderfollowing inability to dischargemortgage repayments or as a resultof an inability to pay rent. Thenotice party and her family have noentitlement to the use of a particularpremises. If it were not for the useof the premises obtained from theproceeds of crime[,] the notice party

would have to have provided forherself[,] or have provided for heralternative accommodation. Thefact that the notice party and herfamily will be placed in a position if adisposal order is made followingconfirmation of a Section 3 orderwhere she would have to seekalternative accommodation is ofitself not a basis for dischargingSection 3 or 7 orders or refusing therelief sought by the plaintiff herein.A person in possession of premisesrepresenting the proceeds of crimehas no constitutional grievance ifdeprived of their use ...”

20. In Criminal Assets Bureau v. JohnKelly and T. T. [2012] IESC 64delivered on 29th November 2012,MacMenamin J. referred to thedecision of Feeney J. in CAB v H.

24. In 2011 this court deliveredjudgment in an appeal entitled CABv. H [2011] IESC 10. The judgmentwas delivered by Denham J. speakingfor the court. The court expresslyconcluded that the High Court judge(Feeney J.) in that case “had noterred” in his reasoning on the issuesbefore him. That judgment wasupheld in its entirety. In order toestablish the impact of that judgmenton this appeal, it is necessary toconsider the facts and the principleslaid down in CAB v. H.

21. 25. The respondents were a husbandand his wife, Ms. H, who was residentin the family home and who had fourchildren aged between five andtwelve, together with a step



daughter. Together with herhusband, they were living in a houseowned by Mrs. H ‘s father-in-law whowas the registered owner. Inseparate proceedings, the HighCourt has made a declaration thatMrs. H had an interest in the family

€home valued in the sum of 6,348.69£or 5,000.

In Para 29 He (Feeney J.) added

“The two essential points raised bythe notice party are that she needs ahome and she will be “homeless” ifthe receiver is given an order forpossession and that the premises inquestion are particularly suitable forsocial, domestic and educationalrequirements of herself and herfamily.”

At para. 30 MacMenamin J noted thefinding of the judgment by Feeney J setout in para 18 above.

At para 31 he said:

31. The judge pointed out that anydelays had favoured the noticeparty. He concluded that the courtshould make an order forpossession, despite the fact thatthere might be disruption to thenotice party and her children in theevent that they had to vacate thepremises. Such inconvenience wasnot to be seen as an “injustice” forthe purposes of s. 3(3) or s. 4 of theProceeds of Crime Act. He did,however, carefully structure theorder to minimise the disruptioninvolved.

At paras 32-34, MacMenamin J set outthe principles applicable in an applicationfor a disposal order pursuant to Section 4of the PoC Act:

32. In each case, the courts must besensitive to the actual property andother rights of citizens which arise.But, as has been pointed out,repeatedly, a person directly orindirectly in possession of theproceeds of crime can have noconstitutional grievance if deprivedof their use. The Proceeds of CrimeActs 1996-2005 are identified asbeing legislation “to enable the HighCourt, as respects the proceeds ofcrime, to make orders for thepreservation and, where appropriate,the disposal of property concernedand to provide for related matters”.There is a strong public policydimension to this legislation. Thatpolicy is to ensure that persons donot benefit from assets which wereobtained with the proceeds of crimeirrespective of whether the personbenefiting actually knew how suchproperty was obtained with theproceeds of crime but subject towhether or not such person mayhave been a bona fide purchaser forvalue, where differentconsiderations may arise.

33. The Act provides for fair proceduresto be observed. It cannot be seen asarbitrary. It is designed to achieve adesirable social objective and beproportionate. It cannot be said toimpinge on a right to privateproperty, as the property wasacquired unlawfully. One of thefacts to be borne in mind is the



extent to which, as a result of thecommission of crime, persons maydirectly or indirectly benefit in a waynot open to other members of thecommunity, such as living withoutthe requirements of payments oftax, mortgage repayments or rent.These activities are profoundly antisocial and contrary to the commongood. The interference with therights of private property embodiedin Article 40.3.2 and Article 43 of theConstitution and Article 8 of theEuropean Convention on HumanRights are, therefore, proportionateand in accordance with law.

At para. 34 MacMenamin J summarisesthe factors to be weighed in the balancein assessing the risk of injustice in thiscase as follows:-

(a) When it is established that propertyis the proceeds of crime, theinterference with property rights inrestraining disposal and orderingdisposal of such property is to beseen as being in the pursuit of alegitimate aim for the prevention ofcrime and for the protection of therights and freedom of others. Insuch circumstances, these ordersmay be necessary in a democraticsociety where the objective pursuedin the legislation is to ensure thatindividuals do not benefit fromassets obtained from the proceedsof crime and are divested of suchassets. Such a consideration mustbe seen as a weighty factor,although not determinative.

(b) A court must, however, take into

account the circumstances of eachcase and will therefore ensure that(especially in the case of a familyhome) proportionate means areadopted in the making of an order,and so as to take into account how,in what manner, and within whatperiod orders will take effect.

(c) The constitutional protection ofwomen in the home (Article 41.2 ofthe Constitution), although aconsideration, will not be a bar to themaking of an order (CAB v. H.).

(d) The rights to private propertyidentified in Article 40.3.2 and Article43 of the Constitution, and therespect for privacy, family life, andthe home in Article 8 ECHR do notprevent the making of an order, evenin the case of a family home. InGilligan v Criminal Assets Bureau[1998] 3 I.R. 185, the question as tothe plaintiffs right to privateproperty under Article 40.3.2 andArticle 43 of the Constitution alsoarose. McGuinness J. at p.237discussed the safeguards providedfor in the Act and the purpose of thedisposal powers as follows:

“...the State has a legitimateinterest in the forfeiture of theproceeds of crime....

While the proceeds provisions ofthe Act may, indeed, affect theproperty rights of the respondentit does not appear to this courtthat they constitute an “unjustattack” under Article 40.3.2 given



the fact that the State must inthe first place show to thesatisfaction of the court that theproperty in question is theproceeds of crime and thus,prima facie, the respondent hasno good title to it, and also giventhe balancing provisions builtinto 3 and 4 as set out above.

This court would also accept thatthe exigencies of the commongood would certainly includemeasures designed to preventthe accumulation and use ofassets which directly orindirectly derive from criminalactivities. The right to privateownership cannot hold a place sohigh in the hierarchy of rightsthat it protects the position ofassets illegally acquired andheld.”

(e) A court will have regard to theextent of a person’s knowledgeor notice (either express orimplied) that property wasacquired by or through theproceeds of crime. Actualknowledge of criminalwrongdoing will be a substantialfactor in the balance. Evidenceof bona fides must also beassessed. A court may declineto make an order, if it is shown,in accordance with the evidentialonus necessary, that a person inpossession or control of theproperty is in a position toestablish that he or she hadpurchased the property in goodfaith, or for valuableconsideration. (See Murphy v

G.M., per Keane C.J.)

(f) A court may have due regard towhether there has been a legaldetermination as to the legal orbeneficial rights in a home. Acourt may also give due weight toevidence as to contributions tothe value, or the enhancement invalue of property. Thecircumstances of such adetermination are relevanthowever.

(g) The legal and evidential onus ofproof falls upon a party seekingto contend that the making of anorder would render an injustice.The onus falls on such party toprove their case as a matter ofprobability on the evidenceadduced.

(h) The fact that a party was notpersonally involved in thecommission of crime will not, initself, be a bar to the making ofan order adverse to that party.

(i) The fact that an applicant wasallegedly unaware of the sourceof funds for the acquisition ofproperty does not act as a bar tothe making of an order under theAct.

MacMenamin J further noted that “Theweight to be given to each factor will bedependent on the circumstances of eachcase”.



These principles can be applied, withmodification, in an application to appointa receiver with power of sale. Given thatthe application to appoint a receiver maybe made at any time, and in this instanceit is being made within the 7 year period,there is an onus on the applicant tosatisfy the court that the appointment ofa receiver is warranted in thecircumstances.

Insurance

22. In F. McK v. T.H. and J.H. [2006] IESC63 Hardiman J. stated

“A vital aspect of this preservation,in the case of a building, is to ensurethat the premises are at all timesproperly and validly insured. In myview the evidence before the trialjudge to the effect that the policy ofinsurance was likely to be or tobecome void, which was notcontradicted, was quite sufficient initself to justify the appointment of areceiver with the power of sale.”

23. Mortgage Payments

Bermingham J was not persuaded as ofJuly 2014 that, given the evidence as toher acquisition of the property by way ofgift in 2004, the first respondent hadmade a significant contribution to thevalue of the property which was€130,000 as at 2004, or to the

€subsequent extension costing 38,000,€28,000 of which, was paid in cash. Thelearned judge concluded that the vastbulk of the finance for the property

€together with Gift Tax of 22,000 wasprovided by the second respondent fromthe proceeds of crime. There is nothing

in the evidence before me to concludeotherwise in relation to the mortgagepayments which the first respondentclaims to be making.

Conclusion

Mr Justice Bermingham was clearlyconcerned on 13th October 2014 that thecover obtained from Chill Insurancewould prove permanent. That has notturned out to be the case. The propertyremains uninsured and on the evidencetendered by the applicant is uninsurable.Furthermore, there are significantmortgage arrears. The applicant’sinterest in the property is at risk oferosion on two fronts, from accidental orwilful destruction on the one hand andloss of equity by non-payment of arrearsor foreclosure on the other.

The first respondent has not stated howshe proposes to discharge the arrearsand the current outgoings on theproperty including insurance. Thepreservation of the Applicant’s interest inthe property, in this regard, is dependanton the indulgence of the bank or,alternatively, on the first respondentfinding funds from another source, mostlikely from the second respondent,leaving open the possibility that suchfunds might also be derived from theproceeds of crime. Such a situation,were it to arise, would defeat the purposeof the legislation.

It seems to the court, having regard tothe policy of the legislation regardingproperty held to represent the proceedsof crime and the strong statement ofHardiman J in FMcK v H on theconsequence for uninsured property,



that the order under Section 7 should bemade.

The appointment of a receiver underSection 7 may be made at any time. Thefirst respondent will be allowed areasonable time to acquire alternativeaccommodation either privately orthrough applying to get on the publichousing list. In accordance with thecourse approved by MacMenamin J atpara 31 of Criminal Assets Bureau v.John Kelly and T. T. [2012] IESC 64 thecourt will allow the period of fifteenmonths to minimise the disruptioninvolved.

Key Cases Cited

• Criminal Assets Bureau v. John Kelly andT. T. [2012] IESC 64

• CAB v. H [2011] IESC 10

• McK v. TH andJ.H. [2006] IESC 63



CAB v. Niall O’ Donoghue (oth-erwise Simon Gold, Anglo Irish Global Ltd, & Kurt Lauridsen)

9th June 2016, High Court: Fullam, J,High Court Record No.2014/001/CAB, APPROVED

–Proceeds of crime Proceeds of Crime–Act, 1996 & 2005 Section 8 Belief

evidence

JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE FULLAMDELIVERED ON THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE,2016.

Introduction

1. This is an application by the Bureaufor an order pursuant to Section 3 ofthe PoC Act for freezing orders inrespect of monies held in two bankaccounts:

(i) €The sum of 927,000.60 held inaccount number 13818810 atUlster Bank, College Green,Dublin 2 in the name of AngloIrish Global Limited (AIG);

(ii) €The sum of 27,365 held inaccount number 50729014 atAllied Irish Bank, Navan, Co.Meath in the name of NiallO’Donoghue.

On the 17th February, 2014, theapplicant obtained an interimfreezing order under Section 2 ofthe PoC Act. Initially, on 22nd

October, the Bureau obtained a

freezing order in the District Courtpursuant to Section 17(2) of theCriminal Justice (Money Launderingand Terrorist Financing) Act 2010.On 30th October a solicitor on behalfof the third respondent informed theapplicant that he had instructions toapply to the District Court for arevocation order pursuant to Section19 and for that purpose requested acopy of the order made. No suchapplication was subsequently made.The Section 17(2) orders wererenewed on a monthly basis until themaking of the Section 2 order.

2. Section 6 of the Criminal Justice(Money Laundering and TerroristFinancing) Act 2010 states that“criminal conduct” means

(a) conduct that constitutes anoffence, or

(b) conduct occurring in a placeoutside the State thatconstitutes an offence under thelaw of the place and wouldconstitute an offence if it wereto occur in the State; “proceedsof criminal conduct” means anyproperty that is derived from orobtained through criminalconduct, whether directly orindirectly, or in whole or inpart...”

3. Section 7(1) of the Criminal Justice(Money Laundering & TerroristFinancing) Act of 2010 states:

—“A person commits an offence if

(a) the person engages in any ofthe following acts in relation to



property that is the proceedsof criminal conduct:

(i) concealing or disguising thetrue nature, source, location,disposition, movement orownership of the property, orany rights relating to theproperty;

(ii) converting, transferring,handling, acquiring,possessing or using theproperty;

(iii) removing the property from,or bringing the property intothe State, and

(b) the person knows or believes (or isreckless as to whether or not) theproperty is the proceeds of criminalconduct.”

4. The correct procedure to befollowed in an application for anorder under Section 3 of the PoCAct has been set out by the SupremeCourt (Mc Cracken J) in FMcK v GWD[2004] 2IR 470 at pp 491-2.

Position under Section 8 of the PoCAct: Belief evidence

5. At para. 4 of his grounding affidavitsworn on the 14th February, 2014,the Chief Bureau Officer, EugeneCorcoran, states that it is his beliefthat the said property is in thepossession or control of therespondents and that the propertyconstitutes, directly or indirectly, theproceeds of crime.

6. He states that the grounds for his

belief are based on information,documents and other materialobtained by Bureau officers andmembers of An Garda Síochána asare listed therein. In essence it isthe Bureau’s case that the nature ofthe crime, both within and outside ofthis jurisdiction, involves fraud andmoney laundering.

7. The affidavit evidence can besummarised as follows.

On the 15th and 19th October 2012,€two amounts of 800,000 each were

lodged to the Ulster Bank account bya German lawyer Dr. Bobo Baars.The monies appeared to be theproperty of the fourth respondent,Mr. Kurt Lauridsen, a native ofDenmark. Mr Lauridsen voluntarilyagreed to be interviewed undercaution at Irishtown Garda Stationon 26th August 2013, at which hefurnished documentation to officersof the applicant. He said he had

€entrusted the 1.6m to Dr. Baars toplace in an investment which offereda return of 25% on capital per month

€for 12 months, that is 400,000 per€month totalling 4.8m.

An examination of the aforesaidbank accounts showed withdrawalsfrom the Ulster Bank account andtransfers from that account toentities associated with the firstrespondent and to the AIB Navanaccount in the first respondent’sname. The applicant’s analysisindicates that the Ulster Bankaccount was used as a conduit forthe first respondent’s personal bank



account in AIB Navan. The balancesat the date of the Section 2 order

€were 927,000.60 in the Ulster Bank€account and 27,365.00 in the AIB

account.

8. The fourth respondent said hebelieved that the Ulster Bankaccount was a custodial accountunder his control through his agentDr. Baars and that Dr. Baars and thefirst respondent were jointsignatories in respect of withdrawalsfrom that account. However, he wasinformed at the interview that thefirst respondent was the solesignatory on the Ulster Bankaccount.

He said he was shocked at thisinformation. He was asked what heknew about AIG. He said he knewnothing other than it was an Irishbank. On being told that AIG was nota bank, he said he was shocked tohear that. He said that up to then hehad presumed that Simon Gold wasDirector of Investments with thebank, Anglo Irish Global Limited. Hehad never met Simon Gold. He saidhis contract was with Dr Baars andthat he only became aware whenproblems regarding the monthlyrepayments emerged, that PML Ltd.was the company dealing with thetrading platform regarding hisinvestment. He said he believed hewas the victim of a crime.

9. The applicant carried out a numberof searches of premises associatedwith the first respondent and AIG.As a result of these searches, the

applicant obtained financialinformation in hard copy form aswell as information downloaded fromcomputers seized in the course ofthe searches. In addition, theapplicant obtained bank statementsfor accounts held in the Ulster Bank,Belfast, as a result of MutualAssistance requests to the U.K.authorities pursuant to Section105(g) of the Criminal Justice (MutualAssistance) Act 2008.

10. At para. 33 of her affidavit, the leadinvestigator, Detective Garda Ennis,avers that from confidentialinformation gathered by theinvestigating members during theinvestigation to date, Niall O’Donoghue has a close associationwith an international criminal gangwho are suspected of being involvedin serious fraud including so-called“bank guarantee fraud”, advance feefraud and blocked funds fraud. Shesays and believes that NiallO’Donoghue is generatingsubstantial profits from this criminalconduct and this organised criminalgang are laundering the funds oftheir criminal conduct through bankaccounts that have been identified inthis jurisdiction.

11. At para. 41, Detective Garda Ennisrefers to minutes of a meeting on23rd October 2012, in Belfast withexecutives of Ulster Bank at whichSimon Gold was asked about the two

€lodgements of 800,000. He statedthat the funds were from Dr BoboBaars and Mr Kurt Lauridsen, that DrBaars was a German lawyer and MrLauridsen was a Danish



entrepreneur. He said that thefunds were for a low cost renewableenergy project and that the fundscame from Volksbank inLichtenstein and that Mr Lauridsenwas the financial backer.

12. The applicant carried out thefollowing searches:

22nd October 2012

A search of business premises tookplace at Westside Centre, Leixlip,pursuant to Section 10 of the CriminalJustice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act1997 as substituted by Section 6(1) (a) ofthe Criminal Justice Act 2006. Thesepremises were empty and nothing wasseized. On the same date, a search wascarried out on a rented dwelling at EskerView, Ballinavalley, Delvin, Co.Westmeath the home of Simon Gold.The items seized included a Lenovocomputer.

26th October 2012

13. A search of a residential property atDruids Rest, Mount Druid,Ballinagare, Co. Roscommon wascarried out. This property wasformerly owned by Simon Gold. Theitems seized included a Dellcomputer.

21st May 2013

14. Two searches were carried out onthis date:

(1) A search of residential property,

Windy Ridge, Cartrontroy, Athlone,Co. Westmeath. This is the home ofEmmet O’Donoghue, uncle of NiallO’Donoghue/Simon Gold.

Documents seized in this search aresaid to link Niall O’Donoghue/SimonGold to the Elite Bank Group andIrish Nationwide Bank.

(2) A search of 21 Carra Vale, Mullingar,Co. Westmeath, the home of ElaineErskine the former partner of NiallO’ Donoghue. Twenty three itemswere seized in this search themajority of which relate to IrishNationwide Bank.

15. At paras. 84 to 95 of her affidavit,Detective Garda Ennis relates thatinterrogation of computers seized inthe searches identifiedcommunications with a number ofapparent of injured parties, whowere subsequently interviewed byofficers of the applicant. Twoindividuals claimed to be victims ofadvanced fee frauds. A Mr Gleeson

€ €lost 20,000 of a deposit of 30,000€for a 300,000 bridging loan. He has

provided a statement setting out the£details. Another who lost 20,000

sterling declined to make astatement.

16. The grounds for the belief of theChief Bureau Officer.

The grounds for the applicant’sbelief that the monies, in whole or inpart, constitute the proceeds ofcrime are set out at para. 6 of theaffidavit of the Chief Bureau Officerand can be summarised as follows:

(a) the first respondent (Niall O’



Donoghue) uses multipleidentities (names, address,email address and website) toperpetuate various frauds.

(b) the first respondent isconnected with multipleentities which are suspected tohave the sole function ofcarrying out fraudulentactivities, which are subject tointernational warnings byregulatory agencies across theworld.

(c) the first respondent isimplicated, in Ireland andabroad, in the production offraudulent documentation,such as driving licences,passports and bankingdocumentation, for clients inreturn for a fee.

(d) the third respondent (AngloIrish Global Limited) has notengaged in lawful or normalcommercial transactions.

(e) the manner of the transfers ofmonies into the two accountsthe subject of this Section 3application is consistent withmoney laundering.

(f) the AIB (Navan) account wasopened by the first respondentusing fraudulentdocumentation believed to be afalse UK driving licence.

(g) the first respondent has a highnumber of previous convictionsin the UK and in Ireland whichhave involved theft anddeception.

(h) the level of funds available tothe first respondent is notconsistent with Revenue and

Social Welfare records relatingto him.

(i) €the alleged investment of 1.6million by the fourthrespondent on terms whichincluded a return of 25% permonth on capital for twelvemonths is not consistent withnormal investment practice.

Finding

17. Issues under the proceeds of crimelegislation are determined on thecivil standard of proof. Section 3 ofthe PoC Act does not require anapplicant to establish that the assetssought to be frozen are the proceedsof a specific crime.

18. I am satisfied that the conduct of therespondents in relation to theoffence of money laundering comeswithin the scope Sections 6 and 7 ofthe Criminal Justice (MoneyLaundering and Terrorist Financing)Act 2010.

19. I am satisfied, that on the evidence,the Chief Bureau Officer hadreasonable grounds for his beliefthat the sums referred to in thenotice of motion are the proceeds ofcrime.

20. I find that the belief of the ChiefBureau Officer is evidence.

21. Before considering the positionunder Section 3, it is appropriate tolist the significant developments inthe case subsequent to the Section 2



Order of Birmingham J. on the 17th

February 2014.

On 20th February 2014, Garda Bureau ofFraud Investigation officers searched thehome of Simon Gold at Augharan,Aughavas, Co. Leitrim and interviewedhim at Carrick-on-Shannon GardaStation.

On 14th April, 2014, Messrs. Holmes O’Malley Sexton solicitors entered anappearance on behalf of Mr. Lauridsen.

On 9th June 2014, the first respondentissued a notice of motion grounded onhis affidavit of the 30th May, 2014seeking legal aid for himself and AIG. On19th June, 2014 Ms. Jean Ennis filed areplying affidavit disputing the firstrespondent’s entitlement to legal aid.

On 27th June 2014 the first respondentfiled a supplemental affidavit on the legalaid issue.

On 8th July 2014 Mr. Lauridsen filed anaffidavit dealing with the substantivecase. The affidavit amplified the accountgiven to officers of the applicant atinterview and included a report of aforensic accountant detailing the sale of

€his business for 14m and theapplication of the proceeds.

On 4th September 2014, Mr. Palle Kroeis,an associate of Mr. Lauridsen filed anaffidavit.

On 5th September 2014, Birmingham J.made an order in relation to legal aid.The application for legal aid had initiallybeen refused by Birmingham J. Hedirected that the first, second, and thirdrespondents file an affidavit but whenthis was not forthcoming there was aconsiderable delay. The first and thirdrespondent solicitors provided a letterpurportedly from the H.S.E. suggestinghe had been hospitalised and could notappear in court. When it transpired thatthis document was fraudulent,Birmingham J. refused to extend legal aidowing to the failure to satisfy theobligation of candour.

On 24th November 2014 Claus Bredvig, anassociate of Mr. Lauridsen, filed anaffidavit.

On 5th December 2014, the firstrespondent filed an affidavit dealing withthe substantive issues in the case.

On 30th January 2015, solicitors for thefirst respondent issued a notice ofmotion seeking discovery.

On 9th November 2015, the court madeits order relating to discovery. TheSection 3 hearing was fixed for the 9thFebruary 2016.

On 11th January 2016, the applicantserved a notice to cross examine the firstrespondent.

On 3rd February 2016, Messrs. Flynn andMcMorrow solicitors issued a motion to



come off record grounded on theaffidavit of Michael Keane.

On 5th February 2016, the court accededto the application to come off record.

The Hearing on 9th February 2016

22. On 9th February 2016, the applicantwas represented by solicitor andcounsel as was Mr. Lauridsen. Therewas no appearance on behalf of NiallO’ Donoghue / Simon Gold or AIG.Counsel for the applicant informedthe court that the applicant hadreceived an email from Mr. Goldseeking an adjournment for anumber of months because of healthproblems and also, due to late noticefrom his solicitors, he was unable tosecure alternative representation.

Having heard counsel for theapplicant, the court was satisfied, onthe basis of emails from hissolicitors exhibited in Mr. Keane’ saffidavit, that Mr. Gold had adequatewarning of the course ultimatelytaken by his solicitors.

Furthermore, the court was satisfiedhaving regard to Mr Gold’s lack ofcandour on a previous applicationfor an adjournment due to ill healthin respect of which Mr. Goldadmitted altering the dates on aH.S.E. certificate, his credibility inthe instant application for anadjournment was an issue. Thecourt refused Mr. Gold’s request foran adjournment. The Section 3hearing proceeded.

23. At the outset, counsel for theapplicant informed the court that byagreement, Mr. Lauridsen would betreated for the purpose of theSection 3 application as a noticeparty. The import of this agreement,was that if the court were to holdthat the monies in the bank accountswere attributable to the proceeds ofcrime, Mr. Lauridsen wouldsubsequently bring an applicationunder Section 3(3) for an orderdeclaring that he was the personentitled to the monies. Counsel forthe applicant stated that theBureau’s position was that it wouldbe contesting any such applicationbrought by Mr. Lauridsen.

The position under Section 3

24. Additional evidence on behalf of theBureau comprised the affidavits ofDetective Garda Ennis and DetectiveGarda Thomas O’Connor filed on the19th June 2014, in reply to the legalaid application. In her affidavit,Detective Garda Ennis outlined thesearch of the property in Aughavas,Co Leitrim and the interview of thefirst respondent on the 20thFebruary, 2014.

The property was rented by the firstrespondent in the name of SimonGould [Gold]. A utility bill with thatname was also discovered in thesearch. The first respondentadmitted at interview that he usedthat alias to stop the applicanttracking him down. Other itemsdiscovered included:



• a U.K. national insurancenumber in the name of SimonGold with a date of birth of the22nd November 1964,

• two U.K. P.P.S. numbers for NiallO’ Donoghue and Simon Goldeach having a date of birth of the6th June 1968;

• minutes of a directors’ meetingof AIG listing two directorsSimon Gold and ClaudioTamburrini;

• an Irish driving licence in thename of Savi Khan with a date ofbirth of the 22nd November 1972,with an address at WestsideCentre Main Street, Lucan, Co.Dublin and a photograph of thefirst respondent; a U.K. drivinglicence for Mr Khan has similardetails except the address givenis 5 Hartlepool Court, Docklands,London, E162RL;

• and a U.K. driving licence forSimon Gold with a date of birthof the 26th June 1969, and anaddress at 145-157 St JohnStreet, London, ECV1V4PY.

Detective Garda O’Connor’s affidavitwhich exhibits a statement from aH.S.E. official, confirms that therespondent had submitted a falsifiedH.S.E. document to the court for thepurpose of obtaining theadjournment.

Evidence on behalf of the first andsecond respondents

25. The evidence submitted by therespondents comprises, in essence,the affidavit of Simon Gold of the 5th

December 2014. In summary, the

respondents contest the applicationon the following basis:

(a) the property originated throughthe ordinary course of businessdealings;

(b) all such business dealings andtransactions were carried outwithin the laws of the state;

(c) the first respondent has not beeninvolved in complex frauds;

(d) the second respondent (AIG) istrading and its accounts areexhibited;

(e) the images on the computerseized by the applicant are notactually passports and further,the first respondent has not beenconvicted nor is he under anycriminal investigation for thepossession of false instruments;

(f) all associated companies have orhad proper corporate structuresin various jurisdictions and werenot in breach of any laws in thesaid jurisdiction;

(g) the first respondent neverknowingly became involved withany international criminal gangand all his efforts to be compliantwith paperwork and due diligencedocumentation proves this to bethe case;

(h) the business of the respondentsis to negotiate the lease orpurchase of bank investments;

(i) the funds in the Ulster Bankaccount are legitimate funds;

(j) the drafts relied on by the Bureauwere for novelty purposes; and



(k) the Irish Nationwide Bank was avirtual internet base.

26. There were no exhibits of any kind tosupport Mr. Gold’s contentions.

Submissions on behalf of theapplicant

Counsel submitted that notwithstanding€the significant lodgement of 927,000.60

into the Ulster Bank account in the nameof Anglo Irish Global Ltd., that companyhad a dormant status, had not filed anyreturns and to the knowledge of theBureau it had not engaged in anylegitimate trading.

27. €Counsel submitted that 27,000 waswithdrawn from that bank accountand lodged into an Allied Irish Bankaccount in the name of NiallO’Donoghue. Mr O’Donoghueargued that this sum was acommission he received in respectof an investment. Counsel stated

€that originally 1.6 million waslodged in the Ulster Bank account,funds were dissipated leaving the

€balance of 927, 000.

28. Counsel said that Niall O’ Donoghueand Simon Gold were the sameperson and it had been admitted bythe first respondent that he hadused various names to avoid beingtracked down by An Garda Síochána.Counsel stated it was the Bureau’sbelief that he used multiple identitiesto perpetuate various acts of fraudin particular, creating the impressionof being engaged in legitimate

banking activities and encouragingpeople to invest monies.

29. In the affidavit of Detective GardaJean Ennis it was stated thatdifferent purported banking entities:Elite Bank Group, Irish NationwideGroup and Anglo Irish Global couldall be connected to the firstrespondent. Counsel stated thatnone of these purported financialinstitutions held banking licencesthough the names bore a strikingsimilarity with established and wellknown banks.

30. Counsel said that the firstrespondent had seventeen previousconvictions for fraud offences inboth the United Kingdom and Ireland.Counsel also stated that he had notregistered with the Revenue inIreland and, therefore, he was notpaying tax.

31. Counsel submitted that the firstrespondent had failed to exhibit anycredible supporting evidence. Thefirst named respondent claimed tobe engaged in a legitimate businessin which he acted as an introducerfor persons looking to raise capitalbut had difficulty raising it throughtraditional banking sources. It wasthe Bureau’s belief that this was afraud as the money which peopleprovided in the hope of obtainingcredit disappeared.

32. The first named respondent at para.4 of his affidavit claimed the affidavitof Detective Garda Jean Ennis does



not establish that the propertiesconcerned were acquired from theproceeds of crime. Counselsubmitted that this defence shouldbe rejected in circumstances whereAnglo Irish Global Ltd was dormantand there was no revenue record forSimon Gold in this jurisdiction. Itwas, counsel stated, the Bureau’scase that these were in fact theproceeds of fraud with moneylaundered by Simon Gold withinSection 7 of the Criminal Justice(Money Laundering and TerroristFinancing) Act 2010.

33. The first named respondent claimedon affidavit that Anglo Irish Globalhad been and still was trading.However, counsel said that he hadfailed to exhibit any evidencesupporting this averment.

34. Counsel stated that no evidence hadbeen provided to the court inrelation to the day-to-day affairs ofthe companies; there were nominutes of directors’ meetings,accounting information, or anaffidavit from an accountant. It wasalso claimed by the first namedrespondent that he was compliantwith all paper work and due diligencedocumentation though nothing wasexhibited to support this contentionnor was any documentationexhibited supporting the argumentthat all due diligence was carried outin relation to the funds lodged in theUlster Bank account. The Bureauwas of the view that he was part ofan international network of criminalgangs.

35. Counsel said that it was the Bureau’sposition that there was no risk ofinjustice to the respondents if thecourt was to make an order pursuantto Section 3.

36. There is no requirement to identifythe proceeds as being the result of aspecific crime. Finnegan P stated inMcK. v F and F (Unreported, HighCourt, 24th February, 2003):

“The Plaintiff in this action does notmake the case that the property thesubject matter thereof is the proceeds ofa specific crime or crimes.

These proceedings are civil proceedingsand the onus rests upon the Plaintiff. Inorder to discharge that onus the Plaintiffmay rely upon opinion evidence pursuantto the provisions of Section 8 of the Act.As noted by the Supreme Court theDefendant should be in a position to giveevidence to the court as to theprovenance of any property sought to beattached.

However the Act applies not alone to theperson alleged to have been involved inthe crime but to a person in possessionor control of the property. This maymake more difficult the task of thedefendant. However it is provided inSection 3 of the Act that the court shallnot make an order under that section if itis satisfied that there would be a seriousrisk of injustice and this provisionrepresents an appropriate and sufficientprotection for such a defendant.



Having regard to this circumstance andto the decision of the Supreme Court inMichael Murphy v G.M. PB., P.C. Limited,G.H. I am satisfied that it is unnecessaryfor the Plaintiff to rely upon specificcrimes or to relate items of propertysought to be attached by an order underSection 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act1996 to the commission of specificcrimes and that the Plaintiff can make asufficient case by relying on opinionevidence that the property in questionconstitutes directly or indirectly theproceeds of crime or that the propertywas acquired in whole or in part with orin connection with property that directlyor indirectly constitutes the proceeds ofcrime pursuant to Section 8(1) of theProceeds of Crime Act 1996. The Act inSections 2, 3 and 8 refers to “proceedsof crime”: the word “crime” is notpreceded by a definite or indefinitearticle and this clearly indicates that it isthe legislative intention that the Actshould have application in circumstanceswhere the Plaintiff is unable to show arelationship between the propertyalleged to be the proceeds of crime and aparticular crime or crimes.”

Conclusion

37. Notwithstanding that part of theapplicant’s case is based on hearsayevidence,(as in para 10 above), thecourt is satisfied that the entirety ofthe evidence adduced on behalf ofthe applicant establishes a primafacie case that the monies in thescheduled bank accounts representthe proceeds of crime. This findingshifts the onus to the respondentsto prove otherwise.

38. The respondents’ dealings are best

known to themselves; they are in thebest position to establish theprovenance of the monies in thebank accounts. One would haveexpected, at the very least, that thefirst respondent, in his personalcapacity and in his capacity ofdirector of AIG, should be able tofurnish independent evidenceconfirming that a legitimate businesswas being conducted in compliancewith the relevant requirements ofcorporate governance. Thatevidence would include statutoryreturns, minutes of meetings,audited annual accounts and taxreturns. In the circumstances, it isextraordinary that no documentswere exhibited in the firstrespondent’s affidavit of 5th

December 2014. It renders the firstrespondent’s assertions and denialsall the more incredible. In thecircumstances the court is satisfiedthat the respondents have notdischarged the onus of disprovingthe applicant’s case.

Balance of Justice

39. The property sought to be madesubject to a Section 3 order in thiscase comprises monies held in bankaccounts. The respondents did notchallenge the freezing orderpursuant to Section 17(2) of theCriminal Justice (Money Launderingand Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 atany stage.

40. The first respondent is notchallenging the order relating to theAIB, Navan account.



41. The court concludes that there areno factors which would require thecourt to refrain from making theorders sought based on a seriousrisk of injustice.

Decision

42. The Court will make the orderssought pursuant to Sections 3 and 7of the PoC Act and Section 10(1)and 10(7) of the Act.

Key Cases Cited

• McK. v F and F (Unreported, High Court,24th February, 2003)


Part EightInternational Developments

The International PerspectiveAs a front line agency in the fight againstcriminality, the Bureau's capacity to carryout this function, together with it'ssuccess to date is, to a large degree,based on its multi-agency and multi-disciplinary approach, supported by aunique set of legal principles. TheBureau continues to play an importantrole in the context of law enforcement atan international level.

Asset Recovery Office (ARO)As stated in previous reports, the Bureauis the designated Asset Recovery Office(ARO) in Ireland. Following a EuropeanCouncil Decision in 2007, the AssetRecovery Offices were establishedthroughout the European Union to allowfor the exchange of intelligence betweenlaw enforcement agencies involved in theinvestigation, identification andconfiscation of assets deemed to be theproceeds of criminal conduct.

As part of its commitment as an AssetRecovery Office, the Bureau hasattended three meetings held in Europeto discuss the work and cooperation ofthe Asset Recovery Offices. Thesemeetings were held in Brussels.

During 2016, the Bureau received twentyfour requests for assistance. The Bureauwas able to provide information inrespect of these requests. The requestswere received from twelve differentcountries within the European Union.The Bureau itself sent four requests tothree different countries from which ithas received replies.

International OperationsFrom an operational perspective, theBureau continues to be involved in anumber of international operations. TheBureau’s engagement in such operationscan vary depending on the circumstancesof the case. It may include providingongoing intelligence in order to assist aninvestigation in another jurisdiction.More frequently, it will entail taking anactive role in tracking and tracingindividual criminal targets and theirassets in conjunction with similaragencies in other jurisdictions.

EuropolThe Bureau continues in its role as thelead Irish law enforcement agency in anumber of ongoing internationaloperations which are being managed byEuropol. These operations are targetingthe activities of organised crime gangswho recognise no borders and whoattempt to exploit the opportunitiespresented by freedom of movementacross international frontiers in theircriminal activity or to facilitate suchactivity.

InterpolInterpol is an agency comprising of themembership of police organisations inone hundred and ninety countriesworldwide. The agency’s primaryfunction is to facilitate domesticinvestigations which transcend nationaland international borders. The Bureauhas utilised this agency in a number ofinvestigations conducted in 2016.



CARINIn 2002, the Bureau and Europol co-hosted a conference in Dublin at theCamden Court Hotel. The participantswere drawn from law enforcement andjudicial practitioners.Logo of CARIN

The objective of the conference was topresent recommendations dealing withthe subject of identifying, tracing andseizing the profits of crime. One of therecommendations arising in theworkshops was to look at theestablishment of an informal network ofcontacts and a co-operative group in thearea of criminal asset identification andrecovery. The Camden Assets RecoveryInter-agency Network (CARIN) wasestablished as a result.

The aim of the CARIN is to enhance theeffectiveness of efforts in deprivingcriminals of their illicit profits.

The official launch of the CARIN Networkof Asset Recovery agencies took placeduring the CARIN EstablishmentCongress in The Hague, in September2004.

The CARIN permanent secretariat isbased in Europol headquarters at The

Hague. The organisation is governed bya Steering Committee of nine membersand a rotating Presidency.

During 2016, the Bureau remained as amember of the Steering Group andattended the Annual General Meetingwhich was held in Rotterdam on the 25th-26th May 2016.

ALEFA (Association of Law Enforcement Forensic Accountants)

The ALEFA Network is a Europeanfunded project which has beenestablished to develop the quality andreach of forensic accountancythroughout law enforcement agencies soas to better assist the courts, victims,witnesses, suspects, defendants andtheir legal representatives in relation tothe investigation of alleged fraud, fiscal,financial and serious organised crime.

During 2016, the Bureau attended atraining and development event onmoney laundering at Europol on 15th-17th

November 2016.

Logo of ALEFA



The Freezing, Confiscation andRecovery of Assets ConferenceThe Bureau spoke at the ERA (Academyof European Law) on the conferenceentitled “The Freezing, Confiscation andRecovery of Assets” in Trier on the 19th-20th May 2016.

Logo of ERA

This conference analysed the rules forthe freezing, confiscation and recoveryof assets in the EU, focusing on Directive2014/42/EU and the state of play inrelation to its provisions half a year sinceits transposition. It highlighted recentnational experiences, how to enhancecross-border cooperation, as well as therole and responsibilities of the privatesector in this area. In light of thedevelopments, planned actions tostrengthen the tracking and freezing ofterrorist financing were also addressed.

Key Topics:

• Recent EU policy on freezing,confiscation and recovery ofcriminal assets.

• State of play and use of Directive2014/427/EU's provisions andtools since transposition.

• Major international, Europeanand national initiatives in thefreezing, confiscation and assetrecovery in EU Member States.

• Legal challenges and theinvolvement of the private sectorand

• Planned actions to enhance thetracking and freezing of terroristfinancing.

ICOFI TrainingThe Bureau provided an instructor on theICOFI course entitled “Recovering ofDamages of MTIC Fraud”. TheInternational College of FinancialInvestigations is based in Budapest and islocated in the International TrainingCentre which also hosts the CEPOLNational Unit, the International LawEnforcement Academy, and the CentralEuropean Police Academy National Unit.

The course had participants from acrossthe EU with the CAB instructor focusingthe Bureau's experience in tackling MTICfraud and also its skills in virtualcurrencies.



Logo of ICOFI

Relationship with External Law Enforcement AgenciesThe Bureau has a unique relationshipwith the authorities in the UK, given thefact that it is the only country with whichIreland have a land frontier and therelationship has developed between thetwo jurisdictions over the years.

Cross Border Organised Crime ConferenceThe Cross Border Organised CrimeConference provides an opportunity forall law enforcement agencies from bothsides of the border to get together andreview activities that have taken place inthe previous year as well as plan for theforthcoming year. It also provides theopportunity to exchange knowledge andexperience and identify best practice inany particular area of collaboration.

Cross Border Fuel Group and Cross Border Excise GroupThe Bureau continues to participate inthe Cross Border Fuel Group and theCross Border Excise Group.

Visits to the BureauThe success of the Bureau continues toattract international attention. During2016, the Bureau facilitated visits byforeign delegations covering a range ofdisciplines, both national andinternational.

The Bureau’s continued involvement ininvestigations having an internationaldimension presents an opportunity toboth contribute to and inform theinternational law enforcement responseto the ongoing threat from transnationalorganised criminal activity. In addition,this engagement provides an opportunityfor the Bureau to share its experiencewith its international partner agencies.

Agreement signed between HMRC and CAB on 10th August 2016In recognition of the specific andindividual powers of the Bureau, theUnited Kingdom government hasincluded the Bureau under the provisionsof the UK Serious Crime Act 2007(Section 85). This legislative changestrengthens the provision of evidencefrom HMRC when UK property, assets ornationals are involved in the Bureau'sinvestigations.

In 2016, a joint agreement was signed, inDublin, between Her Majesty's Revenueand Customs (HMRC) and the Bureau tounderpin this important assistance andacknowledgement of the Bureau'sinternational investigative functions.



Above:Detective Chief Superintendent Patrick Clavin, Chief Bureau Officer with Ms. Alison Sommerville, Assistant Director (HMRC- Fiscal Crime Liaison Network)


Part NineProtected Disclosures Annual Report

Protected Disclosures Act 2014Section 22 of the Protected DisclosuresAct 2014 requires of every public body toprepare and publish not later than the30th June in each year a report in relationto the immediately preceding yearinformation relating to protecteddisclosures.

No protected disclosures were receivedby the Criminal Assets Bureau in thereporting period up to the 31st December2016.


Part NineProtected Disclosures Annual Report,



Part TenConclusions

Throughout 2016, the Criminal AssetsBureau has exercised its independentstatutory remit to pursue the proceeds ofcriminal conduct in appropriate cases. Inorder to do this, the Bureau has, inaddition to exercising powers under thecriminal code, drawn on the provisions ofthe Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 asamended, together with Revenue andSocial Protection legislation. The Bureauwelcomes the additional powers andchanges given effect by thecommencement of the Proceeds ofCrime (Amendment) Act, 2016. Theprovisions of the Criminal Assets BureauAct, 1996 as amended, provide for theexercise of the Bureau’s functions usinga multi-agency and multi-disciplinaryapproach.

The Bureau continued to target assetsderiving from a variety of suspectedcriminal conduct including drugtrafficking, fraud, theft, the launderingand smuggling of fuel and the illegaltobacco trade as well as some newemerging trends such as the use of themotor trade to conceal criminal assets,the use of crypto currency for assettransfer and international fraud.Throughout 2016, the Bureau placedparticular emphasis on targeting theorganised criminal gangs engaged inserious and organised crime, as well asproperty crime, such as burglaries. Aparticular focus of the Bureau's activitiescentres upon rural crime.

The investigations conducted by theBureau and the consequentialproceedings and actions resulted in sums

€in excess of 1.4 million being forwardedto the Exchequer under the Proceeds ofCrime legislation. In addition, in excess

€of 2.1 million was collected in Revenue€and in excess of 297,000 in Social

Welfare overpayments was recovered.

At an international level, the Bureau hasmaintained strong links and hascontinued to liaise with law enforcementand judicial authorities throughoutEurope and worldwide in targeting assetsderiving from suspected criminalconduct. In a number of cases, jointinvestigations were undertaken mainlyconcentrated in the area of drugtrafficking.

The Bureau continued to develop itsrelationship with a number of lawenforcement agencies with cross-jurisdictional links, most notably, Interpol,Europol, the National Crime Agency inthe UK and the CARIN Network. As thedesignated Asset Recovery Office (ARO)in Ireland, the Bureau continues tofurther develop enhanced lawenforcement links with other EU MemberStates.

International liaison is not solely confinedto agencies in the area of lawenforcement. In this regard, the Bureauhas continued its efforts to developstrategies whereby assets are targeted,in liaison with financial institutionsoffering financial productsinternationally, so that suspectedcriminals are deprived of or denied thebenefits of assets or gains from criminalconduct.

In pursuing its objectives, the Bureaucontinues to liaise closely with An GardaSíochána, the Revenue Commissioners,


Part NineConclusions

the Department of Social Protection andthe Department of Justice and Equality indeveloping a coherent strategy to targetthe assets and profits deriving fromcriminal conduct. This strategy isconsidered an effective tool in the overallfight against organised crime.

€During 2016, in excess of 3.8 millionwas forwarded to the Central Fund as aresult of the actions of the CriminalAssets Bureau.


Appendixobjectives & functions of the Bureau

Objectives of the Bureau: Section 4 of theCriminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 & 2005

—4. Subject to the provisions of this Act ,—the objectives of the Bureau shall be

(a) the identification of theassets, wherever situated, ofpersons which derive or aresuspected to derive, directly orindirectly, from criminal conduct,

(b) the taking of appropriateaction under the law to depriveor to deny those persons of theassets or the benefit of suchassets, in whole or in part, asmay be appropriate, and

(c) the pursuit of anyinvestigation or the doing of anyother preparatory work inrelation to any proceedingsarising from the objectivesmentioned in paragraphs (a) and(b).

Functions of the Bureau: Section 5 of theCriminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 & 2005

—5. (1) Without prejudice to thegenerality of Section 4, the functions ofthe Bureau, operating through its BureauOfficers, shall be the taking of all

—necessary actions

(a) in accordance with Gardafunctions, for the purposes of,the confiscation, restraint of use,freezing, preservation or seizureof assets identified as deriving,or suspected to derive, directlyor indirectly, from criminalconduct,

(b) under the Revenue Acts orany provision of any otherenactment, whether passedbefore or after the passing of thisAct, which relates to revenue, toensure that the proceeds ofcriminal conduct or suspectedcriminal conduct are subjected totax and that the Revenue Acts,where appropriate, are fullyapplied in relation to suchproceeds or conduct, as the casemay be,

(c) under the Social Welfare Actsfor the investigation anddetermination, as appropriate, ofany claim for or in respect ofbenefit (within the meaning ofSection 204 of the Social Welfare(Consolidation) Act, 1993) by anyperson engaged in criminalconduct, and

(d) at the request of the Ministerfor Social Welfare, to investigateand determine, as appropriate,any claim for or in respect of abenefit, within the meaning ofSection 204 of the Social Welfare(Consolidation) Act, 1993, wherethe Minister for Social Welfarecertifies that there arereasonable grounds for believingthat, in the case of a particularinvestigation, Officers of theMinister for Social Welfare maybe subject to threats or otherforms of intimidation,

and such actions include, whereappropriate, subject to any internationalagreement, co-operation with any policeforce, or any authority, being anauthority with functions related to therecovery of proceeds of crime, a taxauthority or social security authority, of a


Appendix objectives & functions of the Bureau

territory or state other than the State.

(2) In relation to the matters referred toin subsection (1), nothing in this Act shallbe construed as affecting or restricting in

—any way

(a) the powers or duties of theGarda Síochána, the RevenueCommissioners or the Ministerfor Social Welfare, or

(b) the functions of the AttorneyGeneral, the Director of PublicProsecutions or the Chief StateSolicitor.


Notes


Criminal Assets BureauHarcourt SquareDublin 2D02 PT89Ireland

Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016riminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Ciminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Crminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criinal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Crimnal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Crimial Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminl Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 CriminiAssets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminanssets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal A sets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Asets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assts Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Asses Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal AssetBureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assetsureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Breau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bueau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Burau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureu Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets BureaAnnual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau nnual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Anual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Anual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annal Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annul Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau AnnuaReport 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual eport 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Rport 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Reort 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Reprt 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Repot 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Repor2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 012 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 212 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 202 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 2016 Criminal Assets Bureau Annual Report 201

Criminal Assets Bureaujustice.ie/en/JELR/CABAnnualRep16.pdf/Files/CABAnnualRep16.pdf · the media....

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Assets Bureaujustice.ie/en/JELR/CABAnnualRep16.pdf/Files/CABAnnualRep16.pdf · the media....