Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court makes interlocutory orders in respect of a residential property and a watch found therein, on the grounds that the applicant had proved, prima facie: (a) that the relevant items of property were acquired using the proceeds of crime (b) that at the time of seizure of the watch it was in the possession or control of the first respondent; (b) that the residential property was in the possession or control of the second respondent but that this possession or control was more ostensible than real; and (c) that the real control and possession of the residential property was exercised by the first respondent.
Application for interlocutory orders pursuant to s. 3(1) of Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 (as amended) - residential property searched and watch seized - first respondent was living in the property but ostensibly only as tenant - affidavit evidence of Chief Bureau Officer's belief that the watch was acquired with the proceeds of crime and that the house was both acquired in connection with a loan taken out to launder the proceeds of crime and then extended and extensively refurbished using the proceeds of crime - clear that items of property had value in excess of €5,000 as required by statute - whether house was truly in possession and control of second respondent or whether second respondent assisted first respondent in laundering profits by fronting as ostensible owner of the house.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now