Mr. Kevin McMeel:

I wish to address two of the things Senator Ruane raised. I think she was talking about the sales to local authorities. As I am generally the court appointed receiver, I have some insight into this. Unfortunately, the court will direct the sale of a property and the receiver is required to sell it in the open market for the best price reasonably available. If we are receiving the property at the section 4 stage, meaning we have some leeway in whom we can sell it to, as a matter of protocol we will offer it to the Land Development Agency and to the local authority, which will have first refusal. They may decide they are interested in that particular property. We have some quite good news stories. One particular local authority has purchased a tract of land just this year and it has recently received planning permission for social housing on that tract of land. We would like to think we are contributing to returning that land to the extent that we can to assist in the obvious shortage of residential accommodation in the country. Unfortunately, in most instances, we are just required to sell the property. I would be in breach of the order if I offered it at a lower price to the local authority.

The Senator spoke about local authorities changing the properties and reducing the value of those properties. I cannot speak to what local authorities do after they receive properties that were once seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act. However, perhaps extensions to those properties may have built in breach of planning permission. Generally, the types of people we target do not adhere to the planning code to the same extent that many other people would. Often there are breaches of the planning code which I presume the local authority itself would rectify. That might be the reason for that.

To wrap up, some issues were raised and I thought I would have an opportunity to address them. The representatives of the Bar Council spoke of their concerns about the extrajudicial restraint, the administrative restraint, particularly under heads 3 and 4. Head 3 deals with the section 1A process. That was an amendment to the Act in 2016. That 22-day period without recourse to the courts was enacted in 2016. That is not what is being proposed by this Bill. This Bill seeks to put a judicial extension to that. Head 4 is similar. We are looking for a new power which will have an administrative element to it where courts will not have an opportunity to review it for a period of seven days. That is exactly analogous to the section 17 provision which has been in force since 2010 and is used very frequently. I know that the Criminal Assets Bureau has used that provision on average about 750 times a year for the last five years. It has been used nearly 4,000 times in the last five years. Only 2.2% of the applications that we make were initiated through the section 17(1) provision. In only 2.2% of the applications do we not apply to the court in the first instance. The seven-day period is there for a very good reason.

Criminals and fraudsters will often time their criminal offence to take place on a bank holiday or coming up to Christmas time.

On a bank holiday or coming up to Christmas time, everyone receives warnings about holiday fraud. The reason criminals target people at Christmas time is obviously because there is an increase in commercial activity, but also because the banks and the courts are closed. Seven days takes in the practical realities of an investigation such as that. If we do not have an opportunity to get in within those seven days, often people will not even be aware of the fact their bank account has been interfered with. Criminals are wise to what law enforcement can do and what we have. Access to the courts is one of those things. If we can get into court and move our application to secure the order by virtue of section 17(2) or what would be envisaged in this new restraint order, we will do that as promptly as we can because it serves nobody to leave it until the last minute. We suggest that the seven days is something we need. I appreciate the Bar Council submissions insofar as they recognise the requirement for it but caution against the time period for that administrative restraint.

We would say that interference with the individual's property rights is something that happens all the time. In a normal criminal investigation, property is seized as evidence and pending an investigation. People have recourse to challenge that seizure under the police property legislation or, in this instance they have the provisions under sections 19 and 20 of the 2010 Act to challenge that, either within the seven days or thereafter. We would say that people's property rights are vindicated in that sense. Other than that, we would like to wholly endorse the Bill, in line with the written submissions we have made. We think that this will make the Criminal Assets Bureau a more effective organisation and hopefully the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act 2016 a more effective piece of legislation.