McK. (F. J.) v. McD. (S.) [2005] IEHC 205 (4 July 2005)

McK. (F. J.) v. McD. (S.) [2005] IEHC 205 (4 July 2005)

The Plaintiff established, on admissible evidence and on the balance of probabilities, that the Defendant was in possession or control of property constituting the proceeds of crime, satisfying the requirements of section 8(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The evidentiary burden shifted to the Defendant, who did not discharge it. The Defendant's signed statements and affidavit were admissible as admissions in civil proceedings. There was no illegality or unconstitutionality in the retention of the seized property under the Offences Against the State Act 1939 and the Police (Property) Act 1897.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 205
Parties
Plaintiff: F J McK; Respondent: S McD
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Plenary Hearing
Outcome
Order granted in favour of Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Asset Forfeiture, Evidentiary Burden, Admissibility of Statements
Criminal Law Civil Forfeiture Proceeds of Crime Asset Forfeiture Evidentiary Burden Admissibility of Statements

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F J McK

Plaintiff

S McD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Plenary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sums of money seized constitute proceeds of crime under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the evidentiary burden under section 8(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 was satisfied
  3. 3 Admissibility of statements made by the Defendant in civil proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff established, on admissible evidence and on the balance of probabilities, that the Defendant was in possession or control of property constituting the proceeds of crime, satisfying the requirements of section 8(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The evidentiary burden shifted to the Defendant, who did not discharge it. The Defendant's signed statements and affidavit were admissible as admissions in civil proceedings. There was no illegality or unconstitutionality in the retention of the seized property under the Offences Against the State Act 1939 and the Police (Property) Act 1897.

Court Disposition

Order granted in favour of Plaintiff

Orders

  • Order pursuant to section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 in respect of the sums of money identified in the proceedings