Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am grateful to Senator Tuffy for clarifying the amendment. The amendment seeks to insert into section 5 of the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, which related to the function of the bureau, a new subsection which would allow the bureau to take all necessary actions to carry out the functions exercisable by the Director of Corporate Enforcement under the Companies Act.

The remit of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement is to encourage compliance with company law and bring to account those who disregard that law by investigating and enforcing suspected breaches. It differs considerably from the remit of the Criminal Assets Bureau, which is to pursue the proceeds of all crime by identifying assets which derive from criminal conduct and freezing and confiscating those assets. Each body has distinct and separate roles with differing objectives.

Following the Committee Stage debate, my officials consulted the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and the Criminal Assets Bureau on the proposed amendment. Each body expressed concerns lest the amendment might in some way lead to confusion in their respective operational roles. Neither organisation indicated that the change would be desirable. Accordingly, while I am grateful to the Senator for raising the issue, it should not be an objective of the Criminal Assets Bureau to enforce company law, nor is it necessary.

There are obvious requirements with regard to freezing assets deriving from criminal activity. These apply to the Revenue in dealing with proceeds of criminal activity which are subject to tax and the Department of Social and Family Affairs in dealing with social welfare entitlements of persons engaged in criminal activity and fraud. Staff conducting investigations may be inhibited by threats or other forms of intimidation. The Director of Corporate Enforcement does not require the Criminal Assets Bureau as an ally in his jurisdiction. It could create significant confusion in the minds of members of the public and the officers of both institutions if we were to blur the distinction between their respective roles, which are substantially different.