Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation, which I have encouraged the Minister to bring to the House for many a year and which appears belatedly before us. I note there were other pressing issues, and there will be further pressing issues to distract ministerial attention from time to time.

I welcome the Bill. The Acting Chairman, Deputy O'Connor, and the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and Deputy Tuffy, know full well the kind of activities that have been taking place in this country over the past ten years which require this kind of legislation for a number of reasons - to protect the general public, to protect legitimate business interests in this jurisdiction and throughout Europe, to prevent the contamination of the entire financial services infrastructure from the activities of unscrupulous people who use every means at their disposal to achieve gains of a greater nature than they have already achieved, ill-gotten though they may well be, and to protect the general public from the threats and implication of threats that go with the kind of operations we have seen throughout this country for some years and which seem to be able to progress unimpeded.

One wonders where some groups, bodies or agencies get hold of the money to run their business, but it is easy nowadays. In today's world of high technology, it is extremely easy and effective to transfer large amounts of money from one corner of the globe to another, and to do so with such rapidity as to make it virtually impossible for any authority to track.

The Minister in his speech carefully set out the issues that confront society. I am not certain whether the Bill will be capable of dealing with the job facing it, particularly because of the magnitude of the task in hand. I note that in the aftermath of Lisbon II it should be easier and I hope that the institutions anticipated under Lisbon II become fully and forcefully effective.

The money laundering now taking place comes in many shapes and forms. It is big business and is significantly remunerative and tax-free. It is 100% profit-related in all cases. It is built on fear, terror and exploitation, and that is the way it continues. It is a huge industry. The various things to which previous speakers referred are valid. How effective will this be?

The drugs industry is a good example where those involved have to legitimise their activities by routing their finances through legitimate businesses. Legitimate businesses are effectively used as a front for these activities. In some cases, it is impossible to prove the existence of very substantial sums of money that can be transferred in a series of moves right across the globe. However, modern police methods are catching up and we hope that the degree of co-operation that is required between the EU member state police forces will be forthcoming because if that is not the case this legislation will not work.

Instances of large scale money laundering and protectionism have been brought to my attention. Threats of violence and intimidation are used to ensure that this kind of activity goes on. In the last few years, some so-called businessmen have been associated with doubtful financial transactions. This would raise the question as to how much we can depend on the information that we get from some groups and agencies.

I have no doubt this Bill will be effective against what may be termed the "small people". If a person applies for local authority housing, let us consider the volume of correspondence he or she must produce before he or she can even get on the list. That is where the Bill seems to have most effect, and I cannot understand why that should be the case. If students apply for higher education grants, we all know from our constituency clinics about the amount of correspondence with which they must deal. I met with somebody the other day who was applying for a grant and, while I appreciate that the identify of the person concerned must be verified, I have never come across a case where the level of scrutiny might be warranted. Yet, I have found many cases where there was no need for it at all. It was only effective in slowing down the administrative process. A little bit of common sense is no harm in order to ensure that the real work of this Bill is carried out effectively.

The enforcement of legislation is another issue. There is not much sense in having legislation on the Statute Book unless it is put into operation. Everybody rushes for the legislative book when something happens that should not have happened. Was there sufficient legislation in place to deal with the issue that arose? In this case I do not think that there was. This is a new Bill and its effectiveness will be dependent upon the degree to which it is enforced and the degree to which the police authorities in all the member states of the EU and elsewhere will co-operate.

Detection needs to become much more sophisticated. This can lead to the erosion of people's rights, something I would not like to see that happen, but common sense can do much in these situations. We all know businesses that are completely legitimate, but we also wonder how other businesses continue to exist. The answer to such questions will concentrate the minds of people. If the Bill is to become effective against the worldwide travellers who launder and invest money, it will be down to the degree to which the individual member states across the EU and countries across the globe are prepared to get involved.

The Minister states in his speech:

The problem of money laundering has been with us for a very long time. What makes money laundering such an important issue in the modern world is the increasingly sophisticated nature of this kind of crime. That fact, allied with the increasing globalisation of both the financial and business worlds and the internationalisation of a great deal of criminal activity makes the crime of money laundering more prevalent.

That is very valid. The Minister went on to state:

Part 2 of the Bill deals with the main offence of money laundering occurring in or outside the State. It is an offence under the terms of this Bill if a person conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership of property, including money, which is the proceeds of criminal conduct. Converting, transferring, handling, acquiring, possessing or using such property is also an offence, as is removing the property from or bringing it into the State. The offence applies to a person who knows or believes, or is reckless as to whether the property is the proceeds of criminal conduct.

I can see problems with the phrase "a person who knows or believes", because modern criminals use innocent people to carry out their crime. They use innocent couriers to carry out their crime. They particularly target people who are in financial need or who are financially embarrassed, and they will use them to convey or launder their money, or to do anything else that is required. They will do this in as large a scale as it takes to do the job.

The next part of the Minister's statement is the most important. He states:

The seriousness of the offence of money laundering is underlined by the level of the penalties which a person may face who is found guilty of the offence. On summary conviction, the guilty party could face a fine of up to €5,000 and a term of imprisonment of up to 12 months. On indictment, an offender found guilty could be jailed for up to 14 years or be fined or both. It should be noted that a reference to a person knowing or believing that property is the proceeds of criminal conduct also applies to a person who knows or believes the property is probably the proceeds of crime.

I can assure the Minister that the threat of 12 months imprisonment or a fine of €5,000 is of no significance to people in that bracket. It could become an incentive. After all, if the value of the moneys to be laundered is sufficiently high, it would be good value to spend 12 months in prison and be fined €5,000.

Do we really believe a term of imprisonment of 12 to 14 years will deter somebody who has the opportunity to launder €10 million or €15 million or, as in many cases, considerably more? I do not regard this sentence as long enough to deter people from laundering such sums - it might even encourage them.

I am trying to emphasise that there seems to be a problem in Ireland with regard to how one should deal with serious crime. Serious crime requires serious sentencing. If a crime is proven beyond all reasonable doubt by the State, it should not fear increasing the penalty to the required level. The sentences in the United States have not abolished or prevented crime – nobody can – but they certainly increase the risks associated with it. It is not at all unusual for somebody in the United States to be imprisoned for life. A life sentence in that country means life. Sentences of multiples of 50 years are imposed in some cases. Recently, some characters involved in rogue financial dealings learned a harsh lesson in this regard.

While we may have constitutional requirements to comply with, it is high time we realised that if the financial reward is big enough, a deterrent of ten, 12 or 14 years in prison makes no difference. This is well recognised among those concerned. The Minister needs to examine this matter urgently. On Committee Stage, he should consider the prospect of increasing the sentences that apply. This applies all round.

Recently, a retired judge called for the return of the death penalty. I reject this completely. As a civilised society, we have long since gone past that. There is no sense in descending to the level of the criminal by taking a life for a life because this does not work any more, but I see no difficulty in ensuring individuals who have engaged in money laundering, drug smuggling or other criminal activity remain in prison for as long as they live. The quicker we realise that, the better.

In Ireland, the question always arises as to how much it costs to keep a person in prison. The answer is that I do not care, nor does society. If the wrong done to society is sufficiently serious, society must protect itself. There is no other approach and, therefore, I have no hesitation in saying the Minister should consider very carefully the urgent need to ensure that we have a really serious impact on organised crime and create as many disincentives as possible.

Recently, when I was comparing Irish sentencing to that in the United States, somebody said to me the sentences in the United States do not prevent crime. Of course they do not but, importantly, they certainly do not encourage it. For example, nobody can prevent murder. In many other countries, the sentences for murder are very much stiffer than they are here. While such sentences do not prevent the crime, they warn people that there is retribution and that it could be long and severe. We have, unfortunately, strayed from this concept.

I remember a discussion many years ago with a man imprisoned for taking somebody's life. He told me his doing so was not regarded as a serious crime. I would hate to think of what he believes now. The crime has become increasingly less serious. All deliberate crime has come to be regarded as less serious. I do not refer to manslaughter but to the crimes anticipated in the context of this legislation. I refer to crime that can do untold damage to society and leave a blotch on it and to crime that can blight families all over the world. All such crime must be tackled by each state through its institutions. If we do not do so, we will be weak. If society is weak in standing up to the threat of crime, it will suffer as a consequence.

I welcome the legislation. I and Members on this side of the House have called for it repeatedly over recent years. The Garda has done some good and very useful work recently but it and the Criminal Assets Bureau will be employed full-time in dealing with the kinds of issues that are likely to emerge on foot of financial transactions worldwide over the next five or ten years. Ireland and other countries deluded themselves by saying how wonderful and wealthy they were and by believing for a while that nobody would really have to work again. Reality has dawned. In order to protect society, it is essential that this legislation be enforced fully.

See this speech in context