Charlie McCreevy (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)

As I explained in my reply, the level of proof required to obtain a successful conviction under section 9 of the amnesty is evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It has not proved feasible to hear evidence of the standard required to obtain such a conviction. The burden of proof in criminal cases is of the highest standard, that is, beyond reasonable doubt. As regards other aspects of offences where people are convicted, I am sure the Deputy would expect that to be applied by the court. The same applies to criminal prosecutions in tax offences. The tax amnesty legislation in 1993 included an assurance of confidentiality for people dealing with the special collectors. That was enshrined in section 7 of that legislation. As the Revenue auditor or investigator is not permitted access to the declaration made by the person availing of the amnesty, it is not possible to determine whether he or she has been in breach of the amnesty. There are certain exceptions, as the Deputy pointed out, subject to the right of appeal to the appeal commissioners. Less than one third of approximately 20 appeal cases were successful in that regard.

On the question the Deputy asked about this matter, I have seen some newspaper coverage about the ten-year rule. I have been told by the Revenue Commissioners that the legal advice available to them is that there is no time limit on an investigation of indictable offences. The Revenue investigators proceed on that basis. The effect of the passage of time can create evidential difficulties. Until the mid-1990s the Revenue Commissioners did not pursue a specific prosecution strategy. That was left to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That way of doing things was only changed in the mid-1990s.

The Revenue Commissioners got large amounts of money in all the recent investigations. I refer the Deputy to the final report of the sub-committee on DIRT of the Committee of Public Accounts, which referred to the general approach of Revenue in dealing with the role of financial institutions and it was noted that by then the Revenue Commissioners had taken a pragmatic approach.

See this speech in context