I move amendment No. 6:
In page 23, to delete lines 10 to 20 and substitute the following:
“Amendment of Criminal Justice Act 1994
23. The Criminal Justice Act 1994 is amended—
(a) in the definition of “realisable property” in section 3(1), by the substitution of the following for all the words from “but does not include property” to the end of that definition:
“but does not include property which is the subject of a forfeiture order under—
(i) section 30 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977,
(ii) section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018,
(iii) section 61 of this Act;”,
(b) in paragraph (c) of section 12(3), by the insertion of “, section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018” after “section 30 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977”, and
(c) in Schedule 1A—
(i) in Part 1—
(I) by the deletion of paragraph 1, and
(II) in paragraph 6, by the substitution of “paragraphs 2 to 5” for “paragraphs 1 to 5”,
(ii) in Part 2—
(I) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph 17:
“17A. An offence under section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018.”,
(II) in paragraph 19, by the substitution of “16, 17 and 17A” for “16 and 17”.”.
This amendment inserts a new section 23 into the Bill which amends the Criminal Justice Act 1994. Deputies will recall that in the course of the Committee Stage debate I stated that a further technical amendment to the 1994 Act might be necessary and here it is. The new section 23, paragraph (a) amends the definition of realisable property in the 1994 Act. That definition relates to property that is suspected to be linked to criminal activity. Realisable property under the Act can be frozen in contemplation of criminal proceedings. This would be the case so as to ensure that the person who holds the property is stopped from disposing of same until the conclusion of those criminal proceedings. This is done in anticipation of a confiscation order which, of course, would have the effect of depriving an individual of the benefit of any such property. That can be ordered once a conviction is secured. In light of advice received from the Office of the Attorney General and following extensive consideration, it is proposed to exclude any property that is forfeited under section 17 of the Bill from the definition of realisable property because forfeiture under section 17 is part of a criminal penalty and should be excluded from the civil freezing regime under the 1994 Act, as per paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) seeks to achieve a similar aim in that the property which is ordered to be forfeited under section 17 cannot be used in satisfaction of a confiscation order under the 1994 Act. Paragraph (c) is merely a restatement of an amendment which we already agreed on Committee Stage.
I ask the Deputies for their indulgence and support of this amendment.