Criminal Assets Bureau v Mannion [2018] IEHC 729 (17 December 2018)

Criminal Assets Bureau v Mannion [2018] IEHC 729 (17 December 2018)

The Court held that the Ether constituted the proceeds of crime, having been acquired during the respondent's admitted period of drug trafficking and with funds that could not be shown to be legitimate. The Court found that the seizure and review of the respondent's computer and wallet, while lacking formal policy and potentially ad hoc, did not amount to a deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent breach of constitutional rights. Applying the Murphy test (as the Ether was the subject matter, not evidence), the Court found no basis to refuse the s.3 order. The respondent's privacy and property rights were not breached to a degree requiring exclusion or refusal of the order, and the...

Citation
[2018] IEHC 729
Parties
Applicant: Criminal Assets Bureau; Respondent: Neil Mannion
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Proceeds of Crime Application (high Court) / Judgment on S.3 Application Under Proceeds of Crime Act 1996
Outcome
Order granted
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, Exclusionary Rule, Constitutional Rights, Asset Forfeiture, Criminal Procedure, Privacy Rights, Retention of Evidence, Cryptocurrency Seizure
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Constitutional Law Evidence Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 Exclusionary Rule Constitutional Rights Asset Forfeiture +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Criminal Assets Bureau

Applicant

Neil Mannion

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Proceeds of Crime Application (high Court) / Judgment on S.3 Application Under Proceeds of Crime Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 2,013.96 Ether (Ethereum) seized from the respondent constitutes proceeds of crime under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the seizure and retention of the Ether and computer data breached the respondent's constitutional or legal rights
  3. 3 Whether any such breach requires exclusion of the asset from forfeiture or refusal of the s.3 order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Ether constituted the proceeds of crime, having been acquired during the respondent's admitted period of drug trafficking and with funds that could not be shown to be legitimate. The Court found that the seizure and review of the respondent's computer and wallet, while lacking formal policy and potentially ad hoc, did not amount to a deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent breach of constitutional rights. Applying the Murphy test (as the Ether was the subject matter, not evidence), the Court found no basis to refuse the s.3 order. The respondent's privacy and property rights were not breached to a degree requiring exclusion or refusal of the order, and the...

Court Disposition

Order granted

Orders

  • Order pursuant to s.3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 over 2,013.96 Ether (Ethereum) in favour of the Criminal Assets Bureau