Criminal Assets Bureau v Routeback Media AB & Anor (Unapproved) [2024] IECA 112 (10 May 2024)

Criminal Assets Bureau v Routeback Media AB & Anor (Unapproved) [2024] IECA 112 (10 May 2024)

The Respondents are not entitled to re-litigate the s. 3(1) determination that the Monies are proceeds of crime; the court is satisfied that the Monies constitute proceeds of crime and were not acquired through legitimate business activity; no serious risk of injustice arises from the making of a disposal order; the Proceeds of Crime Act applies to corporate respondents; alleged breaches of fair trial rights and foreign law are not grounds to refuse the disposal order.

Citation
[2024] IECA 112
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Criminal Assets Bureau; Respondent: Routeback Media AB t/a Local Mart; Respondent/sole Appellant: Harry Zeman
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Disposal Order, Fair Trial, Legal Aid, Corporate Liability
Criminal Law Civil Forfeiture Asset Recovery Proceeds of Crime Disposal Order Fair Trial Legal Aid Corporate Liability

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Criminal Assets Bureau

Applicant/respondent

Routeback Media AB t/a Local Mart

Respondent

Harry Zeman

Respondent/sole Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may revisit the determination that property constitutes proceeds of crime in subsequent applications under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether new evidence can be considered in s. 4 disposal order applications
  3. 3 Whether the making of a disposal order would result in a serious risk of injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents are not entitled to re-litigate the s. 3(1) determination that the Monies are proceeds of crime; the court is satisfied that the Monies constitute proceeds of crime and were not acquired through legitimate business activity; no serious risk of injustice arises from the making of a disposal order; the Proceeds of Crime Act applies to corporate respondents; alleged breaches of fair trial rights and foreign law are not grounds to refuse the disposal order.