Mr. Kevin McMeel:

Absolutely. It is important to recognise CAB does not object to the Bill in any way. We are here to try to assist and point out difficulties we see. That is important when we pointed to the evidential challenge. The Deputy is absolutely right. If there are evidential difficulties in bringing about a Bill, that is not necessarily a reason not to bring it about, but it is important for us as the people who will utilise the legislation to point out there are potential difficulties in realising practical benefits from the Bill.

On what the Deputy pointed out, he is saying there would be a lower threshold in connection with the conduct than what asset can be specifically derived from it. I have been involved with CAB for ten years and have been in my current role for three years. I have looked at the jurisprudence in respect of proceeds of crime cases conducted by CAB over the full 25 years of its existence. I have not seen a case that distinguishes specifically between what the Deputy pointed out. I am not saying it is not included in the Bill but the courts always look to see whether the asset was derived specifically from the criminal conduct. It does not need to be specific criminal conduct, but if we are saying that criminal conduct is now to be expanded and will not include the dual criminality provisions when that conduct constitutes a gross human rights abuse, or is in connection with a gross human rights abuse, the question then arises as to whether a gross human rights abuse in of itself can generate proceeds. That is the point we are trying to make.