Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 42, subsection (1), lines 34 and 35, to delete "and the Revenue Commissioners".

I mentioned this on Second Stage because it seemed unnecessary to require duplicate reporting obligations to both the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners, given that one would hope for liaison between the two State agencies. I must point out again that I am not seeking to water down the Bill. I fully support the need for reporting requirements and the objectives of section 42, but I simply wish to ensure we avoid bureaucratic overload for those seeking to act in full compliance with the legislation. Should it not be sufficient to contact the Garda with such information, knowing it will pass it on, if necessary, to the Revenue Commissioners?

In addition, there is the possibility, when reports are sent to two agencies, that a report might fall between two stools, with each agency thinking the other is doing something about it. It does seem there is an issue with regard to reporting. It may be that dual reporting is required under the directive although, I must say, I have not looked.

Reporting is also required under the existing Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. I mentioned on Second Stage a particular hobby horse of mine, that is, the need to ensure better codification of our criminal law. Given that we already have such an Act in place as well as other money laundering legislation, it is a pity there is not more coherence among the different Acts. Thus, there is already some duplication of reporting requirements under section 59 of the 2001 Act. This places further obligations on people. I am not opposing these obligations in any way - it is important that we have them - but I wonder whether it would be more practical simply to require a report to the Garda.