Mr. Kevin McMeel:

We have the statistics. Since the inception of the bureau, pursuant to section 4, which is the adversarial method, we have recovered just over €14 million under the Proceeds of Crime Acts. In cases which have settled we have recovered well over €23 million. On this evidence we seem to settle more cases than we do not. The basis on which we settle cases is very straightforward usually. The most we are likely to give people in return for settling a case is a guarantee that we will not pursue them for the costs of the application. Generally they benefit from less publicity being attached to it. They will not have to pay their own barristers in cases where they are not legally aided. They will save themselves that cost.

We very seldom give anything back in terms of assets. In some instances people can show that whereas the asset which is the subject matter of the application is the proceeds of crime, a proportion of the moneys that went into that asset was from a legitimate source. Perhaps one family member was contributing through lawful employment. Generally what happens is that the court makes an order directing the sale of the property but it also directs me as receiver to return 11% of the net proceeds of sale, or whatever percentage corresponds with the legitimate income, to the party affected. Generally we settle on the basis of what we conceive to be the litigation risk and what we think the courts will make of the case.

As we can see from the statistics, people have come around to the idea of settling with the bureau. They recognise it is part of the law enforcement landscape. When they are caught and the case is put before them they can see the evidence and, more often than not, they see they will not win the case and, therefore, they settle.