Murphy -v- Gilligan & Ors [2011] IEHC 62 (27 January 2011)

Murphy -v- Gilligan & Ors [2011] IEHC 62 (27 January 2011)

The respondents failed to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the properties or relevant parts thereof were not directly or indirectly the proceeds of crime. The Court found no sufficient evidence of injustice caused by the s. 3 order to justify discharge or variation. The arguments regarding delay, standard of proof, and necessity to link specific crimes to assets were rejected in light of statutory provisions and binding precedent. The s. 3 order remains in force.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 62
Parties
Applicant: Michael F. Murphy; Respondent: John Gilligan; Respondent: Geraldine Gilligan; Respondent: Darren Gilligan; Respondent: Tracey Gilligan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, S. 3(3) / High Court Judgment on S. 3(3) Applications
Outcome
Applications under s. 3(3) dismissed; s. 3 order remains in force.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Asset Freezing, Standard of Proof, Possession and Control, Variation/discharge of Orders, Constitutional Rights, Delay and Prejudice
Criminal Law Civil Forfeiture Property Law Proceeds of Crime Asset Freezing Standard of Proof Possession and Control Variation/discharge of Orders +2 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael F. Murphy

Applicant

John Gilligan

Respondent

Geraldine Gilligan

Respondent

Darren Gilligan

Respondent

Tracey Gilligan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have established that the properties subject to the s. 3 order are not directly or indirectly the proceeds of crime
  2. 2 Whether the s. 3 order causes any other injustice justifying discharge or variation under s. 3(3)
  3. 3 Whether the standard of proof and evidentiary requirements have been met for variation/discharge

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the properties or relevant parts thereof were not directly or indirectly the proceeds of crime. The Court found no sufficient evidence of injustice caused by the s. 3 order to justify discharge or variation. The arguments regarding delay, standard of proof, and necessity to link specific crimes to assets were rejected in light of statutory provisions and binding precedent. The s. 3 order remains in force.

Court Disposition

Applications under s. 3(3) dismissed; s. 3 order remains in force.

Orders

  • The s. 3 order made in respect of the properties listed in the updated and revised schedule remains in force.
  • Applications by John Gilligan, Geraldine Gilligan, Darren Gilligan, and Tracey Gilligan under s. 3(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 are dismissed.