Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 17, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 16 of Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 17. (1) Section 16 of the Act of 2005 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “Subject to subsections (6) and (8), where an interlocutory order has been in force for not less than 2 years in relation to funds, the High Court shall,” for “Subject to subsection (2), where an interlocutory order has been in force for not less than 7 years in relation to funds, the High Court may,”,

(b) by the deletion of subsection (2),

(c) in subsection (6), by the substitution of “Subject to subsection (6A), in proceedings” for “In proceedings”,

(d) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (6):

“(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6), a person referred to in that subsection may not seek to reopen—

(a) the finding of the High Court, when the interlocutory order was made in respect of the funds concerned, that the funds were used or were intended for use in committing or facilitating the commission of an offence under section 6 or 13, or

(b) any other findings of fact made by that Court at that time.”,

(e) in subsection (7), by the substitution of “6 months” for “2 years”, and

(f) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (8):

“(8) The Court shall not make a disposal order where it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if the order were made.”.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 16 of the Act of 2005 as it stood immediately before the coming into operation of that subsection shall continue to apply in respect of an interlocutory order (within the meaning of that Act) that is in force on such coming into operation.

(3) In this section, “Act of 2005” means the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005.”.”.

The amendment proposes to amend section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005.

The purpose of this amendment is to streamline the process for the final disposal of funds that have been identified as being connected to the financing of terrorism. This amendment replicates the changes being made to section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 by section 8 of the Proceeds of Crime and Related Matters Bill 2025. Both legislative frameworks will now benefit from the same enhancements - a two-year waiting period for a disposal order, the prevention of re-litigation of decided facts and a shorter adjournment period. This parallel approach is essential to maintain a consistent and harmonised legal framework for tackling illicit assets whether they derive from general organised crime or terrorist financing.

To understand why both Acts are being amended in this way, it is important to see how they interact. The Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 established Ireland's internationally recognised system for the civil non-conviction-based seizure of assets derived from general criminal conduct. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 later created a specific parallel regime to tackle the financing of terrorism. The assets seizure framework in the 2005 Act was explicitly modelled on the successful Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and as stated in section 20 of the 2005 Act, many procedures from the 1996 Act are applied to the terrorist financing regime. By reducing the waiting time for final disposal and preventing re-litigation of settled issues, we are making these regimes more efficient and, ultimately, strengthening the State's ability to deprive organised crime groups and terrorist organisations of their illicit assets.

Amendment No. 5 is a technical but nonetheless important amendment to the Long Title of this Bill. The purpose of a Bill's Long Title is to serve as a detailed and accurate summary of its legislative contents and intent. It is a critical component to ensuring transparency for the Oireachtas and the public about the full scope of the legislation before us. When a Bill such as this one seeks to amend multiple existing Acts and introduces a range of new measures, the Long Title must be updated to reflect that broad scope. It ensures that all the laws being effected are clearly signposted from the outset. This Long Title now reflects the true scope and ambition of this legislation, which is to further strengthen the State's ability to seize criminal assets and target the proceeds of crime.