By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J No Comments Tags: Human rights, Proceeds of crime
Gilligan v. Murphy [2011] IEHC 465
(High Court, Feeney J, 20 December 2011)
High Court dismisses applications by plaintiffs seeking to challenge proceeds of crime legislation under European Convention of Human Rights. (Full text.)
Proceeds of crime – incorporation of European Convention on Human Rights into Irish law – whether incorporation prospective only, or retrospective – alleged breaches of Convention prior to incorporation – order made under section 3 of the More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Laffoy J No Comments Tags: Banking law, Constitutional law, Human rights, Proceeds of crime
Vehicle Tech Ltd v. Allied Irish Banks PLC [2010] IEHC 525
(High Court, Laffoy J, 4 October 2010)
High Court grants declaration that legislation under which bank account was frozen (since repealed) was repugnant to the constitution, and adjourns issue of whether plaintiff was entitled to damages. (Full text.)
Banking law – investigation into suspected criminal activities by plaintiff – holder of accounts with defendant bank – direction to bank by Garda under s. 31(8), Criminal Justice Act 1994 – money laundering – challenge to More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Fennelly J, O'Donnell J No Comments Tags: Injunction, Proceeds of crime
Minister for Justice v. Devine [2012] IESC 2
(Supreme Court, Fennelly J (with him, Hardiman J, McKechnie J), O’Donnell J (dissenting; with him Finnegan J), 26 January 2012)
Supreme Court dismisses appeal from High Court, and holds that an undertaking as to damages was required when state sought interim injunction to seize assets under proceeds of crime legislation.
Fennelly J (Full text.): Interim injunction – application by state – whether undertaking as to damages required – conviction of VAT fraud in England – seizure of properties in Ireland – Part VII, Criminal Justice Act, 1994 – More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J No Comments Tags: Proceeds of crime
Murphy v. Gilligan [2011] IEHC 464
(High Court, Feeney J, 20 December 2011)
High Court grants disposal orders in respect of properties found to have been purchased with proceeds of crime, and: a) provides that 20% of proceeds of one house be paid to second defendant; and b) places stay on orders for sale of other properties to allow occupants to seek alternative accommodation. (Full text.)
Proceeds of crime – Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 – sections 3(3) and 4 of the 1996 Act – applications for disposal of properties – prior application to restrain disposal under s 3(3) – forfeiture of property proven to be the proceeds of crime – More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J No Comments Tags: Proceeds of crime
Criminal Assets Bureau v. AW [2010] IEHC 166 (30 April 2010)
High Court (Feeney J) grants order prohibiting respondents from disposing or dealing with certain items of property. (Full text.)
Proceeds of crime – s 3 Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 – application to prohibit respondents from disposing of or dealing with items of property – procedure in considering application – potential unfairness of admitting hearsay evidence – failure to establish provenance of assets – risk of injustice – discretion of court.
F. McK. v. G.W.D. (Proceeds of crime outside State) [2004] 2 I.R. 470
F. McK. v. T. H. (Proceeds of Crime)[2007] 4 I.R. 186
Murphy v. G.M. [2001] 4 I.R. 113
McCann v. United Kingdom (ECHR 19009/04)
CAB v. O’B & Anor. (Unreported, High Court, Feeney J., 12/01/2010)
By Mark Tottenham BL in Hardiman J No Comments Tags: Case stated, Proceeds of crime
DPP v England [2011] IESC 16 (Hardiman J, nem diss, 16 May 2011)
Supreme Court holds, by way of answer to case stated, that trial judge incorrect in holding that, where a detention order had expired, money was “detained” for the purpose of a forfeiture order. (Full text.)
Case stated from High Court – section 38, Criminal Justice Act 1994 – detention of respondent at Dublin airport with £79,960 in cash – alleged proceeds of drugs trafficking – seizure of moneys by customs officer – application for forfeiture – expiration of order detaining moneys – whether necessary for forfeiture order than money be held pursuant to existing detention order.
KSK Entrerprises Limited. v. An Bord Pleanála [1994] 2 IR
By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J No Comments Tags: Proceeds of crime
Murphy -v- Gilligan [2011] IEHC 62 (Feeney J, 27 January 2011)
High Court finds that respondents failed in discharging onus of proving that properties purchased with funds other than proceeds of crime, with the exception of a portion of the funds used by fourth respondent to purchase dwelling house, and that no other injustice arose from interlocutory orders. (Full text.)
Proceeds of crime – variation of interlocutory order – s 3(3) Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 – delay in hearing of Criminal Assets Bureau application – proportionality of legislation – contradictory and false evidence in affidavits sworn by respondent – claim by respondent that monies for purchase of equestrian centre were profits from gambling – evidence from bookmakers as to respondent’s betting activities – whether respondent discharged onus of proving that funds emanated from sources other than crime – whether continuing order would result in serious risk of injustice.
Murphy v. Gilligan (Unreported, Supreme Court decision of 13th May, 1997)
Murphy v. Gilligan [2009] 2 I.R. 271
MFM v. BM High Court, Finnegan P, 3 November 2006
M(MF) v. C(M) and M(G) and Ors. [2002] WJSC-HC-3759
Murphy v. G.M High Court, O’Higgins J, 4 June 1999
Murphy v. G.M. and Ors. [2001] 4 I.R. 113
McK v. F. High Court, Finnegan P, 24 February 2003
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Gilligan [2006] 1 I.R. 107
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Gilligan (No. 3) [2006] 3 I.R. (273)
McIntosh v. Lord Advocate [2001] 3 WLR 107
Criminal Assets Bureau v. O’B. and Anor. (Unreported, High Court, Feeney J., 12th January, 2010)
By Mark Tottenham BL in Denham J No Comments Tags: Proceeds of crime
CAB v H. [2011] IESC 10 (Denham J, nem diss, 25 March 2011)
Supreme Court affirms order of High Court (Feeney J) refusing to vary or discharge order to sell property, but orders that parties to action not be identified. (Click here for full text.)
Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 – property to be sold – proceeds to Central Fund – application to discharge or vary order – identification of parties.