Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I do not want the two very separate issues to be confused. The Department of Justice submission made it crystal clear. I made a decision in crafting this legislation to modify the proven proceeds of crime legislation and to broaden the definitions of criminality to include abuses of human rights. This is our stab at it. It is different from many of the legislative pieces that are enacted in other jurisdictions that go under the banner of Magnitsky because I think this is an effective way of doing it. It will not be uniform and it will not capture everything, but it does a number of things. First, it is a signal that we regard human rights abuses as a very serious matter, if people want to have assets here.

If we look at the definition in the Bill, the conduct is connected with a gross human rights abuse if it involves acting as an agent for another in connection with a gross human rights abuse, directing or sponsoring such an activity that is a human rights abuse, and profiting from such an activity or providing material assistance in support of or connection with carrying on a human rights abuse, including by providing goods or services, or financial or technological assistance. It is a broad definition. My understanding is that the Department had two difficulties with the Bill from a practical point of view. One was the dual criminality issue and I am not clear of the Department’s stand on that now. Does it still think the dual criminality test is an essential part?