Criminal Assets Bureau v Browning & Ors (Rev1) [2023] IEHC 103 (15 February 2023)

Criminal Assets Bureau v Browning & Ors (Rev1) [2023] IEHC 103 (15 February 2023)

The Court held that the limitation provisions of the Civil Liability Act 1961 and the Statute of Limitations 1957 do not apply to applications under s.3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The Court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the properties and assets identified by the Bureau were proceeds of crime or acquired with proceeds of crime, and that Ross Browning exercised control over them. The estate of William Conway was not in possession or control of the property at the relevant time and was not a necessary respondent. The improvements to Naul and other properties were funded by proceeds of crime and are subject to forfeiture.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 103
Parties
Applicant: Criminal Assets Bureau; Respondent: Ross Browning; Respondent: Ian O’Heaire; Respondent: Sinead Mulhall; Respondent: Stephen Fowler; Respondent: Julie Conway; Respondent: Lesley Conway; Respondent: Cheryl Browning; Respondent: Robyn Browning; Respondent: Ellen Conway
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Application Under Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 2016 / Judgment on Application for Orders Under S.3(1)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Asset Freezing, Money Laundering, Limitation Periods, Beneficial Ownership, Possession or Control of Property
Criminal Law Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeds of Crime Asset Freezing Money Laundering Limitation Periods Beneficial Ownership Possession or Control of Property

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Criminal Assets Bureau

Applicant

Ross Browning

Respondent

Ian O’Heaire

Respondent

Sinead Mulhall

Respondent

Stephen Fowler

Respondent

Julie Conway

Respondent

Lesley Conway

Respondent

Cheryl Browning

Respondent

Robyn Browning

Respondent

Ellen Conway

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 2016 / Judgment on Application for Orders Under S.3(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified properties and assets are proceeds of crime or acquired with proceeds of crime
  2. 2 Whether the application is time-barred against the estate of William Conway under s.9(2) of the Civil Liability Act 1961
  3. 3 Whether limitation provisions apply to applications under s.3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the limitation provisions of the Civil Liability Act 1961 and the Statute of Limitations 1957 do not apply to applications under s.3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The Court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the properties and assets identified by the Bureau were proceeds of crime or acquired with proceeds of crime, and that Ross Browning exercised control over them. The estate of William Conway was not in possession or control of the property at the relevant time and was not a necessary respondent. The improvements to Naul and other properties were funded by proceeds of crime and are subject to forfeiture.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Interlocutory orders under s.3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 made in respect of the specified properties and assets, prohibiting respondents and others from dealing with them.