Criminal Assets Bureau v Gray & Anor [2020] IEHC 92 (21 February 2020)

Criminal Assets Bureau v Gray & Anor [2020] IEHC 92 (21 February 2020)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities and based on the evidence, that both the watch and the house were acquired and refurbished using proceeds of crime, that Paul Gray exercised real control over the assets, and that the explanations provided by Kevin Gray Junior regarding the source of funds were unsatisfactory and not credible. The arrangements for the acquisition and loan were found to be a sham to launder criminal proceeds. An order under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act was warranted.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 92
Parties
Applicant: Criminal Assets Bureau; Respondent: Paul Gray; Respondent: Kevin Gray Junior (also known as Kevin Grey)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Proceeds of Crime Application / Judgment on Application for Order Under Section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 2016
Outcome
Order made under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act in respect of both the watch and the house, including all fixtures and fittings.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Asset Seizure, Money Laundering, Burden of Proof, Evidentiary Standards
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Asset Forfeiture Asset Seizure Money Laundering Burden of Proof Evidentiary Standards

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Criminal Assets Bureau

Applicant

Paul Gray

Respondent

Kevin Gray Junior (also known as Kevin Grey)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Proceeds of Crime Application / Judgment on Application for Order Under Section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the watch and 18 Mallin Avenue were acquired using proceeds of crime
  2. 2 Whether Paul Gray or Kevin Gray Junior had possession or control of the assets within the meaning of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the arrangements for the acquisition and refurbishment of the property were funded by proceeds of crime

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities and based on the evidence, that both the watch and the house were acquired and refurbished using proceeds of crime, that Paul Gray exercised real control over the assets, and that the explanations provided by Kevin Gray Junior regarding the source of funds were unsatisfactory and not credible. The arrangements for the acquisition and loan were found to be a sham to launder criminal proceeds. An order under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act was warranted.

Court Disposition

Order made under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act in respect of both the watch and the house, including all fixtures and fittings.

Orders

  • Order under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996-2016 in respect of the watch and 18 Mallin Avenue, including fixtures and fittings.
  • Receiver to be appointed (Chief Legal Officer of the Criminal Assets Bureau) with liberty to take possession, manage, let, secure, and dispose of the assets as appropriate.