Dáil Éireann Debate, Friday - 16 December 2016
18. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the full extent of the scale and value of assets seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau in the past five years; if all such properties have been disposed and the proceeds retained by the State; the status of any such properties not yet disposed of in this context; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40419/16]
View answerThis question seeks to ascertain the extent, scale and volume of assets confiscated by the Criminal Assets Bureau over recent years, the extent to which the assets have been successfully disposed of for the benefit of the State and if the Minister will make a statement on the matter.
I thank the Deputy for this question on the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB. The work of the bureau is well regarded nationally and internationally and we are committed to supporting its work through the provision of the necessary resources and we will continue to explore the further development of the bureau in line with the programme for Government.
The latest report we have is for 2015 and that is available. For the Deputy's information, I have included details in the answer provided to him outlining the moneys returned to the Exchequer by the bureau during the period requested as well as the monetary values in respect of the orders. The amounts are striking. From 2011 to 2015, over €10 million was returned under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, almost €16.5 million was returned through Revenue legislation and €1.5 million was returned through social welfare provisions. I have also supplied details of the monetary values obtained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 which are very significant too.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. Is there any continuing litigation concerning the assets involved? Has the State been successful in proving its case in these cases? Are cases still pending which might affect the extent to which the taxpayer might benefit from the seizures in the first instance?
I assume the Deputy is referring to recent media reports which have highlighted bureau matters before the Supreme Court in respect of which judgment is awaited. I will not comment on them but because of the strong powers contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, several cases have been extensively litigated before the courts. While this can cause frustration, the courts are the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not permissible under the law in a particular case. The bureau is actively involved and where cases are taken will actively defend them. Other countries are quite interested in developing the CAB model we have developed here because of its success. The Deputy is aware that earlier this year I brought in legislation to increase the powers of the CAB.
Has the litigation illustrated a further amendment to legislation to strengthen it? Have any cases been brought to court that may have a knock-on effect in the future that might be prejudicial to the bureau's retention?
We will keep an open mind on that. I have met the people running the CAB who highlighted the need for further legislation which was the legislation I brought in earlier this year, the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act 2016. That gives additional powers to target the proceeds of crime, in particular powers for the immediate seizure of assets suspected of being the proceeds of crime. I am pleased that the House supported the legislation. We also changed the thresholds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2016 from €13,000 to €5,000. I will continue to engage with the CAB and if there are any other requests for strengthened legislation, I would be open to that. I acted on the legislation it said was needed this year.
