I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to introduce this afternoon to Dáil Éireann the Proceeds of Crime and Related Matters Bill 2025. This Bill is a significant and necessary step forward in our efforts to ensure that Ireland's framework for tackling organised crime is robust and effective. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Ardagh, will recall that 29 years ago last month, the very brave journalist Veronica Guerin was murdered. In the aftermath of her murder, there were very significant legislative changes made by the Houses of the Oireachtas to ensure that we could combat the organised crime gangs that had such violence and influence at that time. It was apparently the case, and it still is the case, regrettably, that those crime gangs in different guises continue to exist. We can also see throughout our communities the damage and devastation that organised drug crime gangs heap on society. We see it in terms of the damage done to young people who become addicted to drugs - drugs that have been dealt to them because of the greed of those organised crime gangs. Obviously, the motivator for all these organised crime gangs when it comes to the dealing of drugs is money. They get involved in organised crime and the dealing of drugs because they want to make money from this pursuit. Let us never lose sight of the fact that what motivates them is where we should continue to hit them. Even yesterday, we would have seen that a very significant drug dealer pleaded guilty to very serious offences before the Circuit Criminal Court in respect of the type of drug activity in which he was involved in terms of being a multi-millionaire euro cocaine, cannabis and ketamine dealer. At the outset, I want to commend An Garda Síochána on the excellent work it did in apprehending that serious criminal and bringing him to trial and getting a conviction arising from his own admission of guilt. I commend the Dublin crime response team. I commend assistant Commissioner Paul Cleary and detective inspector Ken Holohan on the excellent work the Dublin crime response team did yesterday in apprehending what was a significant drug dealer in this country. Of course, we need to keep at the forefront of our minds that we need to keep updating and changing our laws to ensure we can remain on top of these organised crime gangs so that we never get them in a situation where they feel comfortable about their accumulation of wealth. As I stated at the outset, the legislation that was introduced in the aftermath of Veronica Guerin's murder was revolutionary legislation. I went back and had a look at the legislation that was introduced in the summer of 1996. It was, interestingly, a Private Members' Bill in its first incarnation through the then Opposition spokesperson for Fianna Fáil, John O'Donoghue. In fairness to the Government of the day, it subsequently adopted it through the then Minister for Justice, Nora Owen, and it has had a very significant impact on the activities of criminals operating in Ireland. When I get the opportunity, as I have had in the past, to meet justice ministers and home affairs ministers from other European countries, one of the things they wish to talk about is the proceeds of crime legislation that was introduced in Ireland and that has been operating now for 30 years. What fascinates and interests them is the fact that we have a system whereby we can have a non-criminal conviction process of attaching assets that have been generated by criminals. That was the great achievement of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and, indeed, the corresponding Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, legislation, which was enacted in the same year. I commend the excellent work done by the Criminal Assets Bureau and in particular detective chief superintendent Michael Gubbins, who is the head of CAB, for the very important work it does on an ongoing basis. The legislation before the House this afternoon is for the purpose of amending the proceeds of crime legislation and to ensure it is more effective in seeking to pursue organised crime gangs that have made a lot of money out of criminal activity. Those proceeds of crime should not be permitted to remain with them. If we have difficulties in getting criminal convictions before the courts, we should still nonetheless use the civil courts and proceeds of crime legislation to ensure we can seize their assets. That has been done very effectively in the past. If we look at the success of the Criminal Assets Bureau, Members will see it has denied criminals over €220 million since its establishment. That is a testament to its success and the importance of introducing that new statutory body. As I said, the impact of organised crime extends far beyond financial loss. It inflicts profound social harm and erodes the fabric of our communities. Everyone in this House will be aware of the devastation that drug addiction has on young people. It destroys their lives. We really need to repeat that consistently so that people are aware that if they start experimenting with drugs, there is a serious threat that this will have a devastating impact on their lives. The people who are pushing drugs to them are doing it for one reason and one reason only: they want to make money so they can use that wealth for their own private enjoyment. I can assure people that they will never allow themselves to become addicted in the same way as their victims have become addicted. The wealth generated by criminal conduct is often flaunted, creating a corrosive culture where law-abiding citizens feel that the system is failing, while criminals appear to operate beyond the reach of the law. As established in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, the State's objective is to deprive or deny those persons of the assets or the benefits of such assets. This is crucial for restoring public confidence and demonstrating that the State is committed to justice and fairness. By removing the symbols of their power, we undermine the influence of criminals and protect communities from intimidation and exploitation. Ireland's existing laws, particularly the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 have established an internationally recognised and internationally influential model for seizing illicit assets. The proceeds of crime model is built on two foundational elements. The first is a system of civil forfeiture which, rather than prosecuting offences and trying to trace the proceeds of those crimes, starts from the assets and builds the case that those assets have an unlawful origin. The second is a specialised agency - the Criminal Assets Bureau - bringing together gardaí, Revenue and social protection officers, along with other specialist staff, to link their intelligence and investigations, allowing them to target sophisticated and profit-driven criminality. These building blocks have undoubtedly been effective and successful. As I said, since its inception, CAB has seized and returned more than €220 million to the Exchequer. As crime and the methods criminals use to hide their wealth continue to evolve, however, so too must our response. This Bill introduces crucial updates to confront these modern challenges, enabling faster and more efficient seizure of criminal assets whether they are gained from drug trafficking or other forms of organised crime. Two central reforms ensure when the evidence is there of the illicit origin of assets, the State will move quickly to ensure those in possession of them cannot continue to benefit. The first is the reduction of the time required to permanently seize assets. Under current law, once the High Court has determined an asset is derived from crime, the State must wait seven years before taking final ownership. This Bill reduces that period to two years, a change designed to prevent criminals from continuing to enjoy the benefits of their illicitly gained assets long after they have been frozen by the courts. The second is that, once a court has determined assets are the proceeds of crime, a receiver will be appointed to those assets specifically for the purpose of depriving those holding them of their benefit. Furthermore, the Bill introduces new tools to freeze funds reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime at the earliest stages of an investigation. These are designed specifically for CAB and reflect the complexity of its investigations. A new administrative "payment freezing direction" can be issued by a senior Bureau officer for up to seven days, while a "payment freezing order" may be made by the District Court for a period of up to 90 days and may be renewed by the court for as long as it is necessary and proportionate to do so. This allows CAB to act immediately on intelligence, preventing money from being moved or dissipated while a full investigation is under way. I am acutely aware of the importance of balancing these enhanced powers with the protection of fundamental rights and I want to provide reassurance on this point. It is crucial to emphasise this Bill is built upon a foundation of robust judicial oversight. The new powers for asset detention and freezing of accounts are supervised by the District Court, while the more significant powers of appointing a receiver and ordering the final forfeiture of assets remain reserved for the High Court. At every stage, a judge must be satisfied the actions taken are reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. Ultimately, these changes will pave the way for a more efficient and effective asset seizure process. The State will be better equipped to quickly deprive criminals of their wealth, disrupt their operations and return those funds to the Exchequer for the benefit of all citizens. CAB's successes are actively reflected in the reinvestment of the proceeds of crime into the community. The community safety fund is a tangible example of how this works in practice, ensuring money taken from criminal networks is reinvested in local projects that improve safety, well-being and opportunity. This year, €4 million is available through the fund, which is double the allocation from its first year. This demonstrates our commitment to returning these resources to the public and allowing communities to benefit directly from our success in tackling organised crime. The Bill comprises 17 sections across three Parts. I will take the House briefly through those different Parts and sections. Part 1 comprises sections 1 and 2, which contain the standard preliminary provisions. Part 2 amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. Section 1A of the 1996 Act allows the seizure by a CAB officer of moveable property for an initial 24-hour period. This may be extended by the chief bureau officer for a further 21-day period. Section 4 of the Bill will amend this provision to allow an application to the District Court be made thereafter for further extensions, up to a maximum of 90 days in aggregate with appropriate safeguards. Section 5 creates a power to freeze financial accounts. A senior bureau officer can issue a seven-day administrative freeze on an account where it is necessary to conduct preliminary investigations. The District Court may make a similar order for a period of up to 90 days where it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to suspect the funds in the account are the proceeds of crime; there is a risk of the dissipation of those funds; and freezing is necessary and proportionate. Again, appropriate safeguards are in place and provision is made for the order to be challenged and revoked or varied as necessary. Section 8 cuts the waiting time for the final seizure of criminal assets from seven years down to two, as I indicated earlier. This reform sends a clear message: once the court has decided your assets are derived from crime, you will lose them and lose them quickly. Furthermore, to bring finality and efficiency to the process, this section introduces measures to ensure issues which have already been litigated when a section 3 order is made are not re-argued. This has happened frequently in the past in situations where the freezing application is being made, arguments are made in respect of assets not being proceeds of crime and then subsequently - several years later - the issue is relitigated when it comes to the permanent seizure of the assets. There is no necessity for that relitigation. It is noteworthy there was a Supreme Court decision yesterday which partially dealt with this and saw no issue in respect of it. Crucially, however, the necessity to hear all parties is protected, as is the court's power to avoid a serious risk of injustice. Section 9 is a consequential amendment which supports this new, more robust approach to the final seizure of assets. It provides flexibility by removing the time limit on consent disposal orders. This allows CAB and a respondent to agree to the forfeiture of an asset at any stage, again avoiding needless litigation. Section 11 strengthens the powers of receivership. It creates a presumption in favour of the immediate appointment of a receiver once an interlocutory order is made. The receiver's purpose is now explicitly stated as being "to deprive the respondent of the ongoing benefit and use of the property." This ensures immediate possession of assets may be secured and the incentive to frustrate the process is removed. Again, this power is subject to avoidance of a serious risk of injustice. Within Part 2 there are several more technical and consequential amendments to align definitions and procedures with the more substantial changes introduced elsewhere in the Bill. Part 3 addresses other Acts to ensure the framework is aligned and effective. Section 15 harmonises the definition of "cash" in section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 with Regulation 2018/1672, which is the EU cash control regulation. It also makes a practical change to the rules on property seized in an interest-bearing account. Section 16 enhances the operational capacity of the bureau. First, it allows non-Garda experts in the bureau, tax inspectors and social welfare officers to sit in on interviews of detained persons for a wider range of serious offences. This brings their vital expertise right into the interview room. Second, it extends the anonymity protections for CAB officers to cover them even after they have left the bureau. This is essential and I commend the diligence and bravery of CAB officers who are sometimes involved in potentially dangerous work. The threats these officers may face do not stop on their leaving CAB. Section 17 is a technical provision to ensure anti-corruption laws are aligned with the changes we are making here. Let us be clear on what these measures will achieve. The Bill is not just about legal processes or receiverships; it is about delivering real-world impact by ensuring the benefits of a criminal lifestyle are not just delayed but denied. By cutting the waiting period for final seizures from seven years to two and by empowering receivers to take immediate control of assets, we are sending a clear message: the proceeds of crime will be swiftly and completely removed from those who have wronged our society. We have seen already the success of this with large, organised crime gangs which were based in Ireland and which left because of the pressure from An Garda Síochána, because they were being brought before the courts and because of the powers available to CAB. Additionally, this Bill is not merely about taking from criminals; it is also about giving back to our communities who have been targeted by them. The funds seized through this enhanced process will be returned to the Exchequer and reinvested for the public good. The community safety fund is a powerful example of how money taken from organised crime is channelled directly into local projects which enhance safety and well-being across the country. There are several matters I intend to return to on Committee Stage and I will flag the most notable of these for the information of the House now, so colleagues are aware. The first concerns the information exchange with independent domestic statutory agencies, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions. Consultation is continuing on the data protection aspects of this matter and I expect to introduce a provision allowing for designation of appropriate bodies to receive relevant information from CAB. I expect to introduce a provision in respect of the publication of tax defaulter information in relation to CAB settlements. I am also considering further expansion of the assets held in accounts that may fall under the restraint provisions introduced in section 5. There are several further, more technical provisions that I will not go into now, but these are also under consideration. Many details will merit debate and I look forward to working constructively with Members as the Bill progresses. We will have an opportunity on Committee Stage to look at a number of matters in terms of what the Bill does or does not cover. I know there is general acceptance across the House of the success of the proceeds of crime legislation and the Criminal Assets Bureau legislation as they have operated in the country for the past 30 years. This Bill is a significant and important development. It means that, even if we cannot get criminal convictions against criminals who are destroying our communities, we can bring them before the civil courts and seize the assets they secured through their criminal activity. These proceeds of crime should be taken off them and invested in the communities they are trying to destroy. Everyone in the House will agree this is a commendable purpose, and that is why I commend this legislation to the House.

Sentiment score: 0.03

I thank the Deputy.

Sentiment score: 0.36

I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. It is also notable and unusual that everyone who spoke is very much in favour of the legislation, with full support across the House. I welcome that. It is important that people who are involved in criminality and generating wealth from it, know that there is unanimity in this House in our opposition to them and in our desire to combat them. I will deal with some of the issues that were raised by colleagues. Deputy Mark Ward spoke about white-collar crime. It is the case that CAB does go after this type of crime. CAB does not only go after people involved in drug dealing or other such activities. Deputy Ward also spoke about the community safety fund, as did many other colleagues. There is a desire for the money to go back into the areas that are most affected by it and there is an application process. It may be the case that some communities are better informed when it comes to filling out application forms. That could be a legitimate comment in respect of the matter. If that is so, those communities need to be informed about the fund. People in this House and elsewhere would be happy to assist them in filling out the application forms. Deputy Ward also asked about a mini-CAB. In fairness, to CAB, it goes after people in terms of assets which are the proceeds of crime, even if they are amounts in the low thousands of euro. CAB does not have a hierarchy that says it should only go after the millionaire criminals. It does target the lifestyle of rich criminals. CAB does a lot of observation work and it looks at people's lifestyles. A lot of work goes on under the surface that we do not hear about or discuss in this House. Deputy Ward also spoke about youth diversion. We need to ensure that we have as many youth diversion programmes operating as possible. Later this year, I hope to be in a situation where every area will have a functioning youth diversion programme, powered by the Probation Service. Deputy Quinlivan referred to the feuds in Limerick. It is worth noting that there were significant feuds in Limerick before and the gardaí got on top of them and dealt with them. CAB played a significant role in that as well. Regrettably, it is probably always the case that when one crime gang is got rid of, someone else will rise up and take their place. The important thing is that the Garda will be on their case and CAB will be following them closely after that. The message should go out that it is a pointless activity getting involved in crime. It may generate money in the short term but in the long term it will result in imprisonment and a person's assets being seized and a very negative reflection on their life. Deputy Kelly made some comments about the role of Ruairí Quinn in the proceeds of crime legislation. I am beginning to see now that success has many fathers. I mentioned John O'Donoghue and Deputy Ward mentioned Nora Owen. I commend the Government and Members of the Oireachtas back in 1996 for coming up with this innovative idea. Deputy Kelly also spoke about Brendan Howlin's legislation from some years ago, the Proceeds of Crime (Gross Human Rights Abuses) Bill 2020. I have not had an opportunity to look at it. I would have thought it would be fairly difficult to try to transpose a provision such as this into Irish law. My understanding from listening to Deputy Kelly is that it is legislation that would permit the Criminal Assets Bureau to seize assets belonging to other countries present in this jurisdiction if those countries were involved in an abuse of human rights. The legislation dealing with seizing assets from criminals in this country is difficult enough, as we can see from the complexity of it, and I am not in a position to start going around seizing assets in respect of human rights abuses around the world. However, I look forward to seeing the amendment Deputy Kelly said he would bring forward in respect of it and, to use Civil Service speak, I would say it will be a very challenging amendment. We will look at it in due course. I thank Deputy Devlin for his contribution. Something I thought about when I was listening to him was the fact that, earlier this week, there was the decision of the Supreme Court on Routeback. This was a situation where the Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Court of Appeal that refused to allow new evidence to be heard in respect of a proceeds of crime application. From a brief perusal of it, I think the reason was that the Supreme Court said there was new evidence. We are entitled statutorily to change the rules, as we are doing, to say the matter cannot be opened up again. Deputy Barry Ward mentioned we needed a consolidated version of Bills that come before the House. It is difficult enough to prepare a Bill without having a consolidated version of very large legislation. If people are looking for this, the Law Reform Commission frequently publishes consolidated updated versions of legislation. The Proceeds of Crime Act on the Law Reform Commission's website includes all the most recent amendments. If they are enacted into law, these amendments will be included also. Deputy Ward also said we had to exercise caution when it came to freezing orders. Certainly when we look at the legislation, fair procedures are built into it. It has withstood constitutional challenge by various persons. Much of this legislation was tested in the Supreme Court shortly after its enactment in 1996 and it was found to be constitutional. Deputy Ó Murchú echoed the point made by Deputy Kelly on trying to use the legislation for the purpose of human rights abuses. The best way to deal with issues such as this is through the sanctions imposed at EU level. That is how we deal with sanctions and freezing of assets belonging to certain persons from Russia. It can only be done when there is agreement at EU level. Deputy Ó Murchú also mentioned the issue of cocaine that, regrettably, is prevalent throughout our society. Deputy Gannon welcomed the Bill. He referred to it as a smart piece of legislation. He spoke about addiction. Addiction is the real consequence of the criminal activity of people delivering and dealing in drugs. It has had disastrous consequences for young people who get caught up in addiction. I regret to say, however, that no part of the country is immune to this addiction and every constituency of every TD in the House has addiction issues. I have seen it myself from visiting addiction services. Deputy Gannon also spoke about having a mini-CAB. I repeat the point I made in response to Deputy Mark Ward, namely, that CAB goes after small amounts of assets if it believes they are the proceeds of crime. Deputy Kenny mentioned how people in Ireland feared crime. This is true but we need to be balanced in our understanding of it. Ireland is, relative to other countries, a safe country. There will be crime in a country with a successful economy. When money is available, regrettably, people will fall for the attraction of drugs, although they should not do so. In terms of proceeds of crime applications before the courts, there are very many of them. It is not a case that there is a small number of applications. I had a look at the legal diary as I was listening to colleagues and today there was a proceeds of crime list in the High Court with 22 items. A lot of work is going on in respect of the Criminal Assets Bureau. Deputy Gogarty welcomed the Bill and asked whether the properties that were frozen could be rented out. In practical terms, when a section 3 freezing order is made, the property is sold. Then the money is collected by the receiver and the money becomes the issue in dispute. It is the practice of CAB after freezing an asset to sell it to liquidate it, if I can use this expression, to get the money. Then there is a dispute about who is entitled to the money, and that is determined by the courts. Deputy Paul Lawless said gardaí in Mayo were struggling. That was not my experience of gardaí in Mayo when I was there doing the Colm Horkan run a couple of weeks ago. I saw a great sense of community spirit from the gardaí in Charlestown and I believe it operates throughout Mayo. Deputy Lawless mentioned, as did Deputy Michael Collins, that he wanted to see more gardaí on the streets. The biggest problem I face as the Minister for justice is that, everywhere I go, people say they want to see more gardaí. I am limited in the numbers I have. It is my job to try to recruit more. I cannot start going around saying I will give a couple of gardaí to certain constituencies. I do not get involved in that. It is a matter for the Commissioner. It would be inappropriate if a Minister for justice started going around directing where gardaí should go. Deputy Michael Collins spoke about how we had lost the war on drugs. I disagree with this. The alternative is that we just put up our hands and say we will legalise drugs and let them come in. The addiction levels would increase significantly. We have seen experiments in other parts of the world, such as America and Canada. They have legalised drugs and it has been a disaster for them. The number of psychotic episodes for young people has shot through the roof and addiction levels have increased. It has become a bigger problem. We are better off having it criminalised. I do not have an answer for Deputy Collins on CCTV but local authorities are responsible for the operation of it.

Sentiment score: 0.02