Seanad debates

Tuesday, 30 November 2004

Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1999: Committee Stage.

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, line 16, to delete "State;"," and substitute the following:

"State,

(c) for the avoidance of doubt, "criminal conduct" shall be construed as involving conduct irrespective of whether that conduct has resulted in a criminal conviction;".

The amendment seeks to extend the definition of what actually amounts to criminal conduct. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has taken a very narrow approach to establishing what criminal conduct means in constituting an offence or more than one offence. Is there a case for a broader definition of criminal conduct? Is there a case, for example, for establishing a definition of criminal conduct irrespective of whether the conduct has resulted in a criminal conviction?

Many people are engaged in criminal conduct who are never caught or convicted. The amendment would more accurately reflect the literal interpretation of the words "criminal conduct" which the Minister has chosen. Under the narrow definition proposed in the Bill such people would not be considered to be engaged in criminal conduct. I wonder whether we should establish the fact that criminal conduct may not necessarily mean or involve a criminal conviction. The amendment could possibly broaden the ambit of the Bill and would certainly make more possibilities available to the Criminal Assets Bureau. I ask the Minister of State to consider that definition.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.