Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Like Sinn Féin, I broadly support the Bill. I will deal separately with the regulation lowering the amount of cash suspected of being the proceeds of crime that may be seized from €6,500 to €1,000.

I can just about handle the reduction in the threshold value of property subject to the Act from €13,000 to €5,000 in the Bill but I am concerned about the fact that family members can be subject to this provision. Because the property at issue could be the proceeds of crime, the provisions are not individual to the person who committed the crime, as I understand it. I would like clarification on that. There are many hard-working family members who have nothing to do with their loved ones' criminality and I do not want the legislation to be abused in terms of them having to prove they own a car or jewellery. What suffices as proof of ownership? It is easy in respect of a car because the log book or the registration certificate can be produced but it is not as easy for jewellery or IT equipment. Will there be set criteria on what constitutes proof of ownership in order that people can claim they are the lawful owner?

The Bill refers to authorised officers finding or coming "into possession of any property that he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting" was obtained through criminal activity. Will there be set criteria on what constitutes "reasonable"? Will it be up to the Garda or will there be a set structure to define "reasonable"? The Bill also makes reference to the threshold value of property subject to the Act being "no less than €5,000". Is that for a single item of property or will CAB have the power to group pieces of property belonging to one person to make up the value of €5,000? I would have a problem if that was the case and I would like this clarified.

I acknowledge the regulation is separate from the Bill but I have an issue with it being another regulation that goes after low-hanging fruit. When the amount is lowered to €1,000, we will again be hitting the people who are probably forced into carrying cash and into being mules. There is also a grey economy in working class communities involving counterfeit goods right down to MAC make up brushes and tanning injections. Will lowering the amount that can be seized to €1,000 leave the people at the bottom wide open to attack from the authorities? It is often said that people who owe a debt to others further up the chain are being forced to carry out the murders. Will removing the €1,000 debt from the person at the bottom of the chain add to the cycle of criminality?Will that person be the next one who will have to pull the trigger because he or she has to make up the shortfall?

The fundamental purpose of the Criminal Assets Bureau is to remove the motive for profit. My fear is that if we lower the amount that can be seized to €1,000, it will not remove the motive for profit but rather it instigates the motive to make up for the shortfall or to somehow make up that money because, again, that will affect the low hanging fruit. I will deal with that aspect when it arises but I would like to get clarification on the first question I asked. I would support any amendments where the money would go back into the community sector.