Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile involves a potential charge on the Exchequer, it has been ruled out of order.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:“(8) Where property is seized and detained under subsection (1) or (2), an application to the Court for an interim order or an interlocutory order in respect of the property shall be made by the bureau officer concerned as soon as he or she has enough evidence to make such an application.”.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy David Stanton. I am glad to see him in the Chamber.

Let me explain the context of the amendment. It arises from a concern I expressed on Second Stage about the extension of powers of seizure and detention of goods to officers of the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, and the Chief Bureau Officer. I said we needed to scrutinise these provisions very carefully to ensure adequate safeguards were provided for parties whose goods would be seized. We should all be aware that it represents a very significant expansion of powers and a break from the current regime under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 which requires High Court supervision in the seizure and detention of goods. We should be conscious of the current provisions in the 1996 Act for the granting of an interim order which only empowers the High Court to permit the detention of goods for 21 days. Section 3 of the Bill purports to extend that power to the Chief Bureau Officer. There is, of course, importantly, recourse for an aggrieved party to go to the High Court to contest this, but, nonetheless, it places, perhaps, an unfair onus on an aggrieved party and does not allow for automatic High Court or any court supervision of the powers of seizure and detention.

As I said on Second Stage, I accept absolutely the need for the Bill which we are supporting. However, we want to ensure it is sufficiently robust to withstand any challenge. We are concerned about the lack of an obligation on the CAB to use the existing court order regime where it gathers sufficient evidence during the 21 day period to go to court before its expiry. As I see it, the problem is that the Bill does not place any obligation on the CAB to curtail the 21 day period. It seems the default position will be, if section 3 is to be used, for goods to be held for 21 days before the normal provisions of the 1996 Act kick in and before the CAB goes the High Court for an interim order or an interlocutory order.

The purpose of the amendment is to insert a new subsection (8) which reads: "Where property is seized and detained ... an application to the Court for an interim order or an interlocutory order in respect of the property shall be made by the bureau officer concerned as soon as he or she has enough evidence to make such an application”. As I said previously, it is similar to the power of detention under the Criminal Justice Act 1984 where the Garda is obliged to release or charge somebody once it has sufficient evidence one way or another, without waiting necessarily for the expiry of the maximum period of detention for which it is allowed to keep a person. We are putting forward the amendment as a suggested mechanism to ensure there an additional safeguard would be in place.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Ivana Bacik for her contribution on the amendment. The Bill, as initiated, contains sufficient safeguards for affected persons against any potential abuse of the new seizure and detention powers. Persons can apply to the court to have an authorisation revoked and to do so need only undermine any one of the four grounds on which the Chief Bureau Pfficer must rely. It is also the case that failure by the CAB to make an application to the court for an interim order or an interlocutory order before the expiry of the 21 day period will open the door to a compensation action by the owner of the property.

The Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 has been litigated to the nth degree, as the Senator knows, by criminals who have been convicted of some of the most heinous crimes at considerable expense to the taxpayer. The High Court and the Supreme Court have been tied up in such cases for lengthy periods. That is as it should be. Everybody, either guilty or innocent, is entitled to access the courts to ensure his or her rights are fully vindicated. I know that there are provisions elsewhere in law that require persons to be charged without delay when the Garda has sufficient evidence to do so. That is only correct. The person concerned will be prosecuted for a criminal offence and his or her liberty may be at stake. It is important that such matters be placed in the hands of the courts without delay. I am afraid, however, that the amendment would open the door to litigation based on procedural arguments that would tie up the CAB and the High Court in a potentially endless discussion on when the CAB had enough evidence to make an application. It has to be borne in mind that when conducting an investigation and, in particular, when making an ex-parte application to a court, investigators are bound to be fair and make reasonable efforts to seek and consider exploratory evidence. Forcing the CAB to cut that process unduly short might in itself render the overall process unfair.

My officials have consulted the CAB about this proposal and it has expressed strong concerns that it would render the entire process unworkable. In that light, I ask the Senators not to press the amendment.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I am grateful to his officials for engaging with me on this issue and indicating they would engage with the CAB on this amendment. The Minister of State said they had done so.

We support the Bill absolutely. On Second Stage we all expressed our strong condemnation of the dreadful events of recent weeks and months, the shootings and the extent to which organised crime had permeated different communities. It goes without saying we want to support the efforts of law enforcement agencies in tackling organised crime, in particular through the mechanisms for the seizing of the proceeds of crime.However, there are people who will be affected by this legislation who may not themselves be directly engaged in criminal activity. Clearly, everyone has a right to be deemed innocent. Subsection 1B states: "A person who has possession or control of property which is the subject of an authorisation, or who is affected by an authorisation...". I believe that acknowledges there may be entirely innocent parties who are unwittingly caught up in this. I gave a hypothetical scenario on Second Stage of a business owner whose premises is being used unknown to the owner in order to store proceeds of crime. CAB may, in good faith, as it is entitled to do, go in and freeze those assets for 21 days under this legislation but that may have a hugely adverse affect on somebody who is running a legitimate business, the premises of which happen to be used in this way. Given that somebody in such a situation will have to go to the High Court, with all the additional legal costs that may entail, I question whether that is a sufficient remedy in this scenario.

There is currently High Court supervision first, so the High Court first sees whether goods can be seized. The point we are making is that we want to ensure there is a sufficient safeguard and that the 21 days will not automatically run without some sort of scrutiny at some point. It is important the legislation is robust enough to withstand challenge.

I agree with the Minister there has been extensive litigation and challenges to the 1996 Act precisely because it was such a departure from our normal due process rules, and the courts have acknowledged this, while upholding the legislation. As the Minister said earlier in the debate, as a result we have this very finely crafted balancing exercise in the 1996 Act to ensure it withstands all the challenges that come to it. I want to make sure this amending Bill, with its very significant expansion of powers for CAB officers, will fit within that constitutional framework and not be found to tip the balance in any way.

Lorraine Clifford Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept Senator Bacik's point that there is a dramatic expansion of powers but I believe this is proportionate. While I also accept her point about innocent business owners being caught up in this, I note this is for a 21-day period and not longer. Taking into account the scale of the threat before us at present, we in Fianna Fáil are satisfied that the safeguards as outlined by the Minister of State are proportionate. If the amendment was made, it could make the legislation unworkable and would place undue pressure on the officers within CAB, who are already under pressure as well as being under-resourced. We have called for more resources to be allocated to CAB but, in their absence, this amendment might hamper its work. As outlined by the Minister of State and the Senator, this legislation has been much litigated in the past. If this amendment was passed, it could open the State to extensive litigation. Therefore, unfortunately, we will not be able to support Senator Bacik's amendment.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister's explanation and the fact the officials have engaged with CAB demonstrate that this is in line with what was suggested on Second Stage. With regard to Senator Bacik's example of a property owner being in such a situation, to the best of my knowledge, the legislation excludes land.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is property on premises that is in question.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While there is always the risk something like that could happen, as the Minister of State has said, the person can go to court to seek redress. This legislation will no doubt be challenged by people who do not have the best interests of the State at heart, similar to the last legislation, which was one of the most litigated pieces of legislation that ever went through these Houses. Nonetheless, I accept the amendment was tabled in good faith and I ask the Minister of State to keep this issue under review. In the short to medium term, the Minister might get the officials to see if the Senator's concerns are borne out when the Act is commenced.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To put the record straight, we simply want to make the legislation as robust as possible. We are approaching this in a constructive manner so, of course, I put the amendment down in good faith. Undoubtedly, there are already people who, under existing legislation, are caught up in the sort of applications we are talking about. Clearly, there is at present a right of recourse to the court, which is very important. We just want to make sure sufficient safeguards are built in. In light of what has been said, I will not press the amendment.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As there is a potential charge on the Exchequer, I must rule amendment No. 6 out of order.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will call you when we dispose of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Lorraine Clifford Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 4 of Principal Act

6.Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (1) by substituting “4 years” for “7 years”.”.

The reasoning behind this amendment is that in 2011, the Department of Justice and Equality set up a working group to examine the proceeds of crime legislation. As far as I know, that report has never been made. However, it was indicated by the then Minister, Mr. Shatter, and by CAB in 2013, two years after the working group was established, that CAB had conducted an analysis of its cases and found that after two or three years, and definitely after four years, very little happens in regard to confiscation orders. It indicated it wanted the retention period brought down to at least four years, if not lower. On that basis, we have put forward this amendment. I understand the Department has some fears in this regard and I would like the Minister of State to outline his concerns.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. I appreciate the motivation behind the proposed amendment, which is well-intentioned. It would be great if CAB could deprive criminals of the proceeds of crime without delay. However, Senators will recall that the Minister in her Second Stage speech emphasised the critical balance of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which operates a as a piece of civil law. The Supreme Court has found the Act does not amount to criminal proceedings. The special provisions of the Act are possible to maintain because they amount to civil proceedings. Any additions to the Act, therefore, must not tip the balance of the Act so that they become criminal proceedings.

It is for that reason that I want to emphasise the care that has been taken to ensure this Bill is not only constitutionally sound but is also sustainable in the special civil context of the Proceeds of Crime Act. The Attorney General's advice has been sought on the proposal to reduce the waiting period for a disposal order from seven years on a number of occasions over the years. In 1999 and in 2003 the then Attorneys General advised against the reduction of the seven-year period. The Senator will recall that former Chief Justice Keane described the Act as "unquestionably draconian". The seven-year period has been seen as an important counterbalance to the Act's draconian nature and one that prevents it from being seen as a penal measure. The advice of the Attorney General has been sought once again in the context of the current Bill and the proposed amendment. I am advised that in the absence of a clearly demonstrated need for and justification of a reduction to four years, it is too risky to do so as it would jeopardise the proportionality of the legislation.

As was said on Second Stage, the Proceeds of Crime Act has served us well for 20 years. It has been tested again and again in the courts. We must be sure that any changes to this carefully honed legislative tool do not blunt or break it. I would, therefore, ask the Senator not to press the amendment.

In addition to that fundamental point about the proportionality of the Act overall, there are practical questions concerning how such a reduction in the period would apply to existing cases and what transitional provisions might be required.If I have not convinced Senators of the risks inherent in reducing the waiting period, I would at least ask that they not press the amendment today but pursue the question as part of the medium-term review of the legislation.

Lorraine Clifford Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will press the issue as part of the medium-term review. We are eager that this Bill proceed and that those involved in gangland crime be tackled and apprehended, particularly in the wake of the most recent shooting in north County Dublin and the shooting in the south inner city a few days previously. Innocent members of the public have been caught up in the feud. We must ensure that legislation is in place. We appreciate the Government's efforts in that regard and I call on the Department to allocate adequate resources so as to prevent gardaí from being taken from other divisions to tackle this crime.

I will not press the amendment but we will pursue the matter at a later stage.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must rule amendment No. 9 out of order as being a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of us spoke on Second Stage in favour of the principle of the amendments that have been ruled out of order, that being, the funds raised should be ring-fenced for the disadvantaged communities that have suffered the most from the sorts of organised crime that we are discussing. This is in keeping with the broader issue, namely, that criminal justice measures are not enough on their own to tackle organised crime, gang crime or drug crime. A range of initiatives needs to be taken. The Minister of State is in agreement, as has the justice committee generally been in the past. We must consider a multidisciplinary approach rather than just criminal justice measures. An initiative to ring-fence the proceeds raised from this sort of civil forfeiture legislation would also be a way of tackling disadvantage. We all accept that this is the type of issue that might best go forward to the wider review of the legislation that the Tánaiste mentioned on Second Stage. The issue that I raised in my amendment regarding the extension of CAB's powers could be included in that wider review.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:"Report by Minister

7. The Minister shall, within three months of the enactment of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on measures that will be undertaken to tackle proceeds of crime within the unregulated gambling industry.".

It is my great pleasure to welcome the Minister of State to the House and to congratulate him on his elevation, which was well deserved, I am sure.

As we move down the food chain of ensuring that no one benefits from the proceeds of crime at any level, all too often we hear of convicted criminals being properly sentenced by the courts and arriving at their designated prisons only to be fed their lunches or dinners, handed travel warrants and sent home. I am not suggesting for one moment that the mid-level criminals that the Bill is designed to hurt avail of this revolving door system to the same degree as those who might be described as petty criminals but we must be aware of the fact that the bottom feeders or petty criminals are a part of the criminal fraternity that is managed by the dons whose activities we are seeking to limit. I refer to them as "dons" because how they are behaving is akin to how mafiosi behaved previously in that they shoot people within the criminal fraternity who do not do what they ask them to do.

We must move to zero tolerance of crime. We must openly demonstrate that crime, regardless of its level, does not pay. We must hit the criminals where it hurts, that is, in their pockets. The Bill sets out to do that. Hitting criminals in their pockets means closing off all avenues available to them to launder their ill-gotten gains. Many view this Bill as going after drug barons, those who are behind the shootings about which the House sadly hears too much, but there are others operating in society's criminal underbelly. We need to hit them. We need to deal with fuel laundering, cigarette smuggling and crimes involving precious jewellery. We need to deal with the criminals that no one ever gets to hear about or see. I am referring in particular to the pimps who run sex operations throughout the country. I have anecdotal evidence of pimps who bring tens of thousands of euro to betting shops or bookies and request that the money be divided equally across all races or gambling activities on that day. In this way, they clean their money. Some of the large gambling institutions in this country are far from such and are actually banks. These criminals operate them as their banks. Criminals leave tens of thousands of euro on deposit with the large gambling institutions in question. When they need a few bob, they draw money out. When they have money, they chuck it onto the table and ask that it be stuck on every favourite for the day. In this way, they accumulate significant amounts of money.When the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, was here last year, she advised me that the gambling control Bill was being drafted. There have been problems with it. The purpose of the amendment is to limit the illegal banking activities that are happening through the gambling world where one can take, for example, €1,000 and turn it into €800 of clean money. We must stop this.

People's lives are suffering as a result of the criminals operating on the underbelly of society about which most decent people know nothing. Nobody gets shot or injured, that we are aware of. However, I am mindful of one piece of anecdotal evidence. The criminal involved is now a guest of Her Majesty in a UK prison. He brought in young women from eastern Europe, brought them to houses in the midlands and beat them to a pulp until they saw prostitution as something that was a worthy escape from what they were suffering. He made tens of thousands of euro on the backs of these poor girls, brought it to betting shops and cleansed it. This is why I have proposed the amendment.

One cannot walk across the road to AIB or into an insurance company, stockbroker or high quality car dealer or jewellers and throw €40,000 on the table without somebody asking where one got it. However, one can do it in a betting shop. One can walk into a bookie's, put down tens of thousands of euro, walk out the door, and nobody other than the staff will ever know one did it. Nobody will question where the money came from, and one walks out of the place clean. I am not sure many people in the country know this is happening. I am not sure many people who live in the leafy suburbs of the various well-off places in Ireland are aware that people are doing this in their areas. However, I believe the anecdotal evidence has strong supporting evidence, if we only look for it, and if so, we must tackle these people.

I will go one step further. Over the past few days it has come back to me. I have been contacted from outside the House by a person who said I should go further and call for the Criminal Assets Bureau to go into these large institutions today and freeze all accounts until it is established where the money came from. If what I am being told is true, we are not talking about thousands of euro but potentially millions of euro in illegal money sitting in accounts that are, allegedly, betting accounts. If it is true, we have a much bigger problem on our hands than I thought when I first put down the amendment. I would be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say about it.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for raising this very important issue and giving me a chance to outline the proposed approach to the gambling sector's potential vulnerability to being used to launder the proceeds of crime. Certain parts of the gambling sector are already subject to controls in this regard. All private members' clubs in which gambling activities are carried out are required to register with the Department and inspections to ensure their compliance with money laundering legislation is carried out by the anti-money laundering compliance unit of the Department of Justice and Equality.

Regarding the broader gambling industry, a transposition of the fourth EU anti-money laundering directive requires us to review the risks that may exist in this area and consider what further controls may be required to mitigate the risks. A review being carried out under the aegis of the anti-money laundering steering committee, chaired by the Department of Finance and involving all relevant State agencies including my Department, the Garda and the Revenue, will examine the inherent risks in this area, the specific threat factors in this jurisdiction and measures that may mitigate such risks. It will also consider the supra-national risk assessment of the sector carried out by the European Commission. Based on the results of the review, we will determine what the necessary measures to reduce the risks in this area may be and what legislative or other measures may be required. The deadline for the transposition of the directive is May 2017, and work on the review has already commenced. I hope the Senator will understand that the amendment would not be feasible before the completion of the review in mid-2017.

It is also best that any legislative requirements be considered as part of the law regulating gambling, or the transposition process for the anti-money laundering directive rather than the Proceeds of Crime Acts. I would be happy to arrange for the Senator and any other Senators to be briefed on the review process in due course if they are interested, as I am sure they are. I hope my commitment on this will help the Senator in reflecting on the need for the amendment. I thank him for highlighting this very important issue and assure him that it will be addressed.

On the broader issue of regulating the gambling industry, the heads of the gambling control Bill have been agreed, and are with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I am taking a personal interest in the legislation being progressed. The justice committee did a comprehensive report on it during the previous Dáil and I am anxious that it be progressed as soon as possible. I thank the Senator for the work he has put into the issue and ask him to hold off on it for the moment. We will arrange for a briefing for anybody who is interested, and by mid-2017 we hope to have the review completed, which will meet much of what the Senator is seeking.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Senator Gerard Craughwell on putting the issue on the agenda. It is a scandal that these institutions have become the fraud banks for criminals. These accounts can be opened at will and there are no questions about where the money comes from. Many of the dealings in the betting shops are in cash. Some criminals will go somewhere such as Galway city or Cork city and will float between all the different betting shops in the city centre and deal with up to €400,000 on a busy Saturday between themselves and their officials who work for them. It is very important this is dealt with.

I am annoyed that the gambling control Bill did not come in under the previous Government. The Minister of State chaired the justice committee and there was a ground-breaking report on the issue. We had witnesses from the sector and we went to Betfair to hear submissions. People from the various betting shop organisations made their case and a huge amount was raised. When people who put money on horses which turn out to be non-runners, they assume they were losers, and millions of euro is tied up in this, which we believe should go into some sort of State deposit if it is not claimed. The unclaimed small prizes also account for millions of euro in betting shops.

We badly need the gambling control Bill. I thank the Minister of State for telling us it will be progressed. It was very important that the Senator's amendment was aired and that the issues were, again, brought onto the floor of the Seanad.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and the officials from the Department, with whom I have engaged on the issue in recent days. I did not put the amendment down to be in any obstructive or difficult. I am deeply concerned. I have been reassured by the officials and by the Minister of State's reassurance today. The Minister of State's particular interest in the area has given me great hope for the future. In bringing this forward today, we are firing a warning shot to those who believe they can operate above the law in a quasi fraudulent way, which seems to be legal given that it is done through a betting shop. I hope those who are running these large gambling institutions that operate online, and which I will not name here today - everybody knows them, as they advertise morning, noon and night - realise we are watching them.I hope they realise that the Minister of State will take a particular interest in them. I thank him and his officials for the extremely courteous way in which this matter has been dealt with today. Based on what he has said, I am happy to withdraw this amendment and have it dealt with through the other legislation he has set out. His comments are much appreciated.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 6, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:“Certain payments not to be proceeds of crime

7.The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 15:

“Certain payments not to be proceeds of crime

15A.(1) Subsection (2) applies if by any enactment to be passed it is provided that a person who pays or gives another person money or other consideration for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a prostitute is guilty of an offence, while the receipt of money or other consideration paid or given for such a purpose is not made an offence.

(2) If this subsection applies, then the money or other consideration referred to in subsection (1) shall not, by reason only of the passing of an enactment providing as referred to in that subsection, be the proceeds of crime for the purposes of the Principal Act.”.”.

This is another amendment I spoke of briefly on Second Stage. It concerns the proposed change in the law through the sexual offences Bill to ensure that somebody engaged in the sale of sexual services is not criminalised. We are anxious to ensure that if that reform, which I very much support and which the justice committee chaired by the Minister of State before us today has recommended, were to be passed, an unforeseen consequence of this legislation would not be to enable gardaí to seize assets or moneys received by those engaged in prostitution, since they would effectively be decriminalised through the other legislation.

I accept the wording "if by any enactment to be passed" is an unusual formula and not a particularly normal way of framing a proposed amendment, but at this stage we just want to flag the issue. Again, having engaged with the Minister of State's officials on it since Second Stage, it may well be the case that this issue can be addressed through the sexual offences Bill itself when it comes back before us, as I hope it will very soon. In any case, we want to flag it at this point to ensure there is no unforeseen consequence for people who might effectively be decriminalised and that they are not brought back into a law enforcement net through proceeds of crime legislation.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Bacik for raising what could almost be seen as an anomaly in some ways and for flagging it as she has so helpfully done. However, the amendment, as the Senator knows, would disapply proceeds of crime legislation to conduct which, as it stands, is not criminal.

Under current law neither the payment for sexual services nor the receipt of payment for providing such services is a criminal offence. I understand, of course, that the intention is to provide in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 for an offence of payment for sexual activity with a prostitute and that this was a subject of considerable debate in this House, the justice committee and elsewhere. While that Bill was passed by this House earlier this year, it has not yet been enacted, and it is a matter for both Houses to pass that legislation.

While I know that the processes in the sexual offences Bill are generally well supported in Dáil Éireann, it is a matter for the Dáil to conclude its work in this regard. I have some difficulty, therefore, with introducing provisions in this legislation relating to the proceeds of crime arising from conduct that is not currently criminal. In my view, it is not appropriate to introduce a provision which pre-empts the work of the other House, a point to which the Senator herself has alluded in her comments.

That said, this amendment requires further consideration for a number of reasons. The objectives of criminalising the purchaser of sexual services outlined during debate on the sexual offences Bill in this House and in the report of the joint Oireachtas committee, which recommended criminalising the purchase of sexual services, include reducing both push and pull factors. I am concerned that this amendment could have negative implications for persons who offer sexual services and could offer an opportunity for those who would exploit the law and exploit those who are vulnerable.

For instance, the exemption of the purchase of sexual services from criminal conduct for the purpose of proceeds of crime could lead to sex workers being pressurised into holding moneys as seemingly legitimate fronts for pimps, traffickers and other organised criminals. It might also make it more difficult for CAB to pursue proceeds of crime held by pimps or traffickers. For instance, CAB could have to show derivation from trafficking-related prostitution as distinct from non-trafficking-related prostitution. These matters all need be considered further.

It is also the case that while the amendment would disapply the proceeds of crime legislation to money obtained by a person who offers sexual services, that money would still be the proceeds of criminal conduct for the purposes of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. To attempt to exempt the purchase of sexual services in that respect could have potential effects on international obligations and on the regulatory system for money laundering prevention and detection and, again, the potential for sex workers to be used as seemingly legitimate fronts for holding money for pimps and traffickers.

We could consequently have a situation whereby, if this amendment is accepted and the offence of purchasing sexual services introduced, money obtained from providing such services would be the proceeds of criminal conduct under money laundering legislation but not under the proceeds of crime legislation. In addition, aside from the fact that I would have difficulty introducing a provision into law which anticipates the outcome of further legislative deliberations, it is my view that effectively exempting moneys derived from the purchase of sexual services from the proceeds of crime would, for the reason outlined, be fraught with difficulty, contrary to policy objectives and unadvisable. I therefore ask that the Senators not press the amendment but I have listened to what Senator Bacik has said very carefully, and the matter will have to be considered in further discussions on the other legislation to which she refers.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. In the circumstances, I will withdraw the amendment. I am conscious that this issue has been raised previously. It is certainly one we want to keep under review, pending the consideration by the Dáil of the reform in the sexual offences Bill.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators and the Leas-Chathaoirleach for their work on this Bill and all Senators for their considered amendments, some which were allowed and some which were not allowed, obviously. However, they were all tabled with sincerity and due diligence, for which I thank them, and we will note what has been said as the Bill proceeds.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Fine Gael group, I thank the parties in the House for their co-operation in this regard. We start this term as we finished the last term; overloaded to a large extent with justice legislation. It is very important legislation, and Senator Bacik will appreciate where I am coming from on that comment. The Bill will make a difference to CAB and in dealing with the criminal elements in this city that are destroying people's lives. It will equip CAB further to seize the property and assets that are purchased and acquired as a result of ill-gotten gains. That is a good thing for Ireland and the citizens of this country and this city.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, the Tánaiste and the officials for engaging with us, particularly with those of us who expressed issues we had with the Bill on Second Stage and who tabled amendments. I appreciate that engagement and look forward to working with everyone on the wider review. I express again the condemnation I think we have all expressed in this House of the consequences of organised crime and the need to tackle it through robust and effective legislation. We approach this constructively to try to ensure the legislation is robust enough to withstand challenge, being conscious that the civil forfeiture regime, when introduced, was seen as draconian by the courts and that they have subjected it to intense scrutiny over the years. We will all be mindful of that in any debates on the legislation.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join my colleagues in thanking the Minister of State and particularly the officials in the Department who brought forward this legislation in jig time in light of a crisis that has hit this country. It is an excellent piece of work. There is work to be done all the time, but I congratulate the officials and the Minister of State. I look forward to a message going out from the Oireachtas in general to those who wander around the streets of Dublin and other cities in this country with guns that we are watching and we will not sit idly by. We will strip them of every single asset they have until such time as they have no means left. That is the message we need to send out to the criminals in this country. I thank the Minister of State for having come to the House today. I also thank the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald.

Lorraine Clifford Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo the comments of my colleagues. I thank the Minister of State for coming before the House, expediting this legislation through the House and working with us. We all had very valid concerns about the legislation and I appreciate the engagement from the Minister of State's Department in this regard. I also echo in particular Senator Craughwell's comment that this is a strong signal from this House that people who perpetrate such terror on communities right across this country will not be tolerated any longer.We will take their assets from them, put them out of business and into jail, thereby keeping communities safe. That is the signal I want to go out from this House and from the Fianna Fáil Party. I hope the Minister of State will empower and resource those in the relevant services and allow them use this legislation to the best of their ability.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 July 2016.