Criminal Assets Bureau v Russell [2020] IECA 61 (09 March 2020)

Criminal Assets Bureau v Russell [2020] IECA 61 (09 March 2020)

The High Court was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the properties were proceeds of crime and to appoint a receiver, having properly considered the evidence, the statutory scheme, and equitable factors. The appellant failed to displace the prima facie case or show procedural unfairness.

Citation
[2020] IECA 61
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Criminal Assets Bureau; Respondent/appellant: Dean Russell
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Orders Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and 2005
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Appointment of Receiver, Burden of Proof, Equitable Principles, Service of Process, Standard of Proof
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Property Law Proceeds of Crime Appointment of Receiver Burden of Proof Equitable Principles Service of Process +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Criminal Assets Bureau

Applicant/respondent

Dean Russell

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Orders Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in determining the properties were proceeds of crime
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of a receiver over the properties, including the principal private residence, was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether the absence of the appellant at the hearing rendered the proceedings unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the properties were proceeds of crime and to appoint a receiver, having properly considered the evidence, the statutory scheme, and equitable factors. The appellant failed to displace the prima facie case or show procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Orders of the High Court affirmed
  • Receiver to remain appointed over the properties as per original orders