Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I accept the Minister of State's point that the timeframe was an issue.

I wish to speak briefly about the specifics of the Bill. I welcome the broader definition of "criminal conduct" and "proceeds of crime" in section 6 and the cross-border dimension. I note, and the Minister highlighted, the interesting mens rea requirement for the crime of money laundering, namely, that it can be proven where a person believes the property is probably the proceeds of crime. That would be useful in prosecution.

I note also the extensive powers given to the gardaí under section 17 but that there is a recognition of their extensive nature in that a superintendent can effectively close a business for seven days without recourse to a judge. I am glad there is an opportunity under section 19 for a person to come back to the district judge to revoke it. That is important.

Time does not permit me to go into too much more detail but I have some concern about the vagueness of certain definitions. The Minister has indicated some areas on which he will come back. Section 35 which deals with the definition of a politically exposed person is too vague. I ask the Minister to look at it again. Section 24 which deals with the definition of a property service provider is also too vague. Many ordinary individuals under the Celtic tiger years could easily now be described as property service providers. Will all of the onerous obligations under section 55 which deals with record keeping and section 54 which deals with internal policies, procedures and training apply to them? I see there is an opt-out for the training provisions but they will still be required to keep policies and procedures and to be liable for criminal prosecution if they do not. I ask that this might be looked at again.