Mr. Brendan Bruen:

I thank the committee and the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to attend and contribute to the deliberations on the scheme of the Bill. The Department has benefited significantly from stakeholder input in developing the scheme and the Department and I look forward to the discussion today and to considering any input arising from the committee’s scrutiny.

At the outset, I particularly acknowledge the exceptional work of the Criminal Assets Bureau. Since its inception, it has been at the forefront of disrupting the activities of the organised criminal groups which have caused such damage to our society. Between 1996 and 2022, CAB has recovered more than €210 million.

That targeting the proceeds of crime is a valuable and vital response to economic and organised crime is now hardly controversial. Across Europe and beyond, there is a growing realisation and acceptance that pursuing individuals for individual criminal offences can only be a part of the response to such conduct. Another necessary part of that response is targeting the illicit assets that are generated by that conduct and which have no demonstrable lawful source. That realisation is, of course, one which Ireland reached a long time ago with the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, and indeed before that, and the Irish model has rightly been a focus of international attention as this approach has been more widely adopted.

Civil confiscation is not the trial of a criminal offence, but rather a challenge to the provenance of the asset. It operates on the premise that the ownership of the asset is tainted from the moment it is proceeds of criminal conduct. The trafficker cannot assert property rights against the State over the drugs he or she is trafficking, nor can the trafficker assert property rights over the proceeds of the sale of those drugs. These challenges to ownership and possession properly operate in civil processes and are subject to civil standards of proof.

When introduced, the Proceeds of Crime Act was a new departure. We now have the benefit of approximately 30 years of practical experience in its operation and it has been thoroughly tested in Irish and European courts. The reforms proposed in this scheme reflect the operational lessons learned and are part of a process of ongoing and continual improvement. Given the time available, I do not propose to speak to every aspect of the scheme but I will highlight some features. I am, of course, happy to address any points the committee wishes to examine in greater detail.

The most prominent feature is the reduction in the time that must elapse, that is, from seven years to two years, between the determination that the property is the proceeds of a crime and an order being made for its disposal for the benefit of the Exchequer. A determination the property is the proceeds of crime is made at section 3 of the Bill and this, as has been found by the Supreme Court, constitutes the final hearing of the question of whether or not that asset is the proceeds of crime. The purpose of the period of time provided after that section 3 order, and before the disposal order, has been to ensure that anyone with a claim to the property, including the respondent, may litigate that. Under these circumstances, the view underpinning the scheme is that the seven-year period does not actually function to protect legitimate rights and should be significantly shortened.

There are and remain extensive procedural protections in place and the amendment of section 16, which is proposed in head 9, will add a further balance in the shape of the potential for post-disposal compensation. A separate amendment is proposed to avoid attempts to re-litigate the question of whether property is indeed the proceeds of crime at the section 4 disposal stage. As I have noted, this question is properly dealt with at section 3. Head 8 provides the automatic appointment of a receiver over property, to both protect the property and ensure that the owner is deprived of the benefit of it once it has been finally determined that it is proceeds.

The scheme further provides: in head 3, for the judicial extension of the time property may be seized by the District Court to allow for further investigation and the preparation of an application to the High Court; in head 4, for the restraint of services and transactions where they relate to the proceeds of crime; and in head 11, for the enhanced information exchange provisions in respect of both domestic and international co-operation. I look forward to the committee's consideration of the scheme.