LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
King, Colin (2012)
Publisher: Vathek
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1 1 Cowper 382 at 391.
    • 2 Cf. J. Hall, 'Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts: I' (1943) Columbia LR 753.
    • 3 R v G [2004] 1 AC 1034; The People (DPP) v Murray [1977] IR 360.
    • 4 McQuire v Western Morning News Co. Ltd [1903] 2 KB 100; Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205; Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448.
    • 5 Blackstone 3 Commentaries 3.
    • 6 J. F. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England, vol. II (William S. Hein reprint: 1883) 76.
    • 7 See, generally, D. Walsh, Criminal Procedure (Thomson Round Hall: Dublin, 2002); A. Ashworth and M. Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 4th edn (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2010).
    • 8 A. S. Goldstein, 'The State and the Accused: Balance of Advantage in Criminal Procedure' (1960) 69 Yale LJ 1149.
    • 9 See, e.g., P. Roberts, 'Taking the Burden of Proof Seriously' [1995] Crim LR 783; V. Tadros and S. Tierney, 'The Presumption of Innocence and the Human Rights Act' (2004) 67 MLR 402.
    • 10 W. S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, vol. II, 4th edn (Sweet & Maxwell: London, 2003) 453.
    • 11 Stephen, above n. 6 at 81.
    • 12 Henry M. Hart Jr, 'The Aims of the Criminal Law' (1958) 23 Law and Contemporary Problems 401 at 406.
    • 13 A. Kennedy, 'Justifying the Civil Recovery of Criminal Proceeds' (2004) 12(1) Journal of Financial Crime 8; T. P. Farley, 'Asset Forfeiture Reform: A Law Enforcement Response' (1994) 39 New York Law School LR 149.
    • 14 M. M. Cheh, 'Constitutional Limits on Using Civil Remedies to Achieve Criminal Law Objectives: Understanding and Transcending the Criminal-Civil Law Distinction' (1991) 42(5) Hastings LJ 1325.
    • 15 D. Dripps, 'The Exclusivity of the Criminal Law: Toward a “Regulatory Model” of, or “Pathological Perspective” on, the Civil-Criminal Distinction' (1996) 7 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 199 at 202.
    • 16 See, e.g., J. Meade, 'Organised Crime, Moral Panic and Law Reform: The Irish Adoption of Civil Forfeiture' (2000) 10(1) Irish Criminal Law Journal 11; L. Campbell, 'Theorising Asset Forfeiture in Ireland' (2007) 71 JCL 441; L. Campbell, 'The Recovery of “Criminal” Assets in New Zealand, Ireland and England: Fighting Organised and Serious Crime in the Civil Realm' (2010) 41(1) Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 15.
    • 17 For example, there has been little scrutiny of the agency-the Criminal Assets Bureau-tasked with implementing the proceeds of crime legislation; why is the Bureau widely lauded as a success story while similar agencies in the United Kingdom (e.g. the Assets Recovery Agency; the Serious Organised Crime Agency) have not received similar acclaim?
    • 18 This article examines relevant Irish jurisprudence, with reference to US jurisprudence where appropriate. For consideration of non-conviction-based asset forfeiture elsewhere, see, e.g., Assets Recovery Agency v Walsh [2004] NIQB 21; Gale v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] UKSC 49; M v Italy, Application No. 12386/86, judgment of 15 April 1991; Raimondo v Italy (1994) 18 EHRR 237.
    • 19 J. Simser, 'Perspective on Civil Forfeiture' in S. Young (ed.), Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Property: Legal Measures for Targeting the Proceeds of Crime (Edward Elgar: London, 2009); A. Kennedy, 'Designing a Civil Forfeiture System: An Issues List for Policymakers and Legislators' (2006) 13(2) Journal of Financial Crime 132.
    • 20 Gale v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] UKSC 49.
    • 26 K. Mann, 'Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middleground between Criminal and Civil Law' (1992) Yale LJ 1795.
    • 27 M. Ashe and P. Reid, Money Laundering: Risks, Liabilities and Compliance, 2nd edn (Firstlaw: Dublin, 2007) 306.
    • 28 [2002] 1 IR 72 at 81.
    • 29 Meade, above n. 16.
    • 30 Kennedy, above n. 13; Simser, above n. 19.
    • 31 J. Lea, 'Hitting Criminals Where It Hurts: Organised Crime and the Erosion of Due Process' (2004) 35 Cambrian LR 81 at 83.
    • 32 Campbell, 'Theorising Asset Forfeiture in Ireland', above n. 16 at 455.
    • 33 M. M. Gallant, Money Laundering and the Proceeds of Crime: Economic Crime and Civil Remedies (Edward Elgar: London, 2005) 19.
    • 34 A. X. Fellmeth, 'Challenges and Implications of a Systemic Social Effect Theory' (2006) University of Illinois LR 691 at 728.
    • 35 [2001] 4 IR 113.
    • 36 [1962] IR 1.
    • 37 Specifically, they referred to Peisch v Ware 4 Cranch 347 (1808); United States v Halper 490 US 435 (1989); Austin v United States 509 US 602 (1993); Department of Revenue v Kurth Ranch 511 US 767 (1994); United States v Ursery 518 US 267 (1996) (although the majority decision does not favour the appellant's contention, they urged the court to prefer the dissenting judgment of Stevens J); and United States v Bajakajian 524 US 321 (1998).
    • 38 Murphy v GM, PB, PC Ltd, GH; Gilligan v CAB [2001] 4 IR 113 at 135-6. Cf. FJMcK v AF and JF [2002] IR 242 at 258-9.
    • 39 [2001] 4 IR 113 at 147.
    • 40 356 US 86 at 94 (1958).
    • 41 Cf. G. Pearson, 'Hybrid Law and Human Rights-Banning and Behaviour Orders in the Appeal Courts' (2006) 27 Liverpool LR 125.
    • 42 See, e.g., Hudson v United States 522 US 93 (1997).
    • 63 Murphy v GM, PB, PC Ltd [1999] IEHC 5 at [103].
    • 64 Ibid. at 105.
    • 65 Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, s. 1, as amended.
    • 66 Attorney-General v Southern Industrial Trust Ltd [1960] 94 ILTR 161; Goodman International v Hamilton [1992] 2 IR 542.
    • 67 Calero-Toledo v Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. 416 US 663 (1974).
    • 68 For consideration of how the notion of guilty property developed into a powerful weapon of law enforcement, see S. J. Pollock, 'Proportionality in Civil Forfeiture: Toward A Remedial Solution' (1994) 62(3) George Washington LR 456 at 461 et seq.
    • 69 Gallant, above n. 33 at 57.
    • 70 United States v Ursery 518 US 267 (1996).
    • 71 Fellmeth, above n. 34 at 732.
    • 72 Campbell, 'The Recovery of “Criminal” Assets in New Zealand, Ireland and England: Fighting Organised and Serious Crime in the Civil Realm', above n. 16 at 26.
    • 73 The presence of a punitive purpose does, admittedly, play a significant role in relevant Strasbourg jurisprudence. See, e.g., Ozturk v Germany (1984) 6 EHRR 409; Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom (2004) 39 EHRR 1.
    • 74 Dáil Éireann, Private Members' Business-Measures Against Crime: Motion, 2 July 1996, vol. 467, col. 2364.
    • 75 See, generally, Dáil Éireann, Private Members' Business-Organised Crime (Restraint and Disposal of Illicit Assets) Bill 1996, Second Stage, 2 July 1996. For a critique of such assumptions, see R. T. Naylor, 'Wash-out: A Critique of Follow-the-Money Methods in Crime Control Policy' (1999) 32 Crime, Law and Social Change 1.
    • 76 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Annual Report 2002 (2003) 24.
    • 77 Pollock, above n. 68 at 469.
    • 78 A. Doty, 'Reshaping Environmental Criminal Law: How Forfeiture Statutes Can Deter Crime' (2006) 18(3) Georgetown International Environmental LR 521 at 532.
    • 79 I. Crosby, 'Portland's Asset Forfeiture Program: The Effectiveness of Vehicle Seizure in Reducing Rearrest Among “Problem” Drunk Drivers' in M. Pagon (ed.), Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Comparing Firsthand Knowledge with Experience from the West (College of Police and Security Studies: 1996).
    • 80 'CAB claims Hutch is leader of major gang of criminals', Irish Times, 3 March 1999.
    • 81 See, e.g., Helvering v Mitchell 303 US 391 (1938).
    • 82 [1998] 3 IR 185 at 217-18.
    • 83 See, e.g., the decision in Kansas v Hendricks 521 US 346 (1997). Cf. P. H. Robinson, 'The Criminal-Civil Distinction and Dangerous Blameless Offenders' (1993) 83 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 693; S. J. Schulhofer, 'Two Systems of Social Protection: Comments on the Civil-Criminal Distinction, with Particular Reference to Sexually Violent Predator Laws' (1996) 7 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 69.
    • 84 This is not to deny, though, that monetary sanctions can, and do, serve punitive and/or deterrent functions in their own right. For discussion of alternative punishments to imprisonment, see D. M. Kahan, 'What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean?' (1996) 63(2) University of Chicago LR 591.
    • 85 [1998] 3 IR 175 at 178.
    • 86 518 US 267 at 290 (1996).
    • 87 Cf. United States v US Coin and Currency 401 US 715 (1971).
    • 100 'The greater the attenuation of the rights of the owner of property, whether by reversal of the burden of proof, or confiscation without a criminal conviction, obligatory disclosure, compelled reports from the owner's professional contacts (banker, lawyer, accountant), or any of the other evidential and procedural devices to be considered, the less costly the proceedings and the more lucrative they are likely to be to the State': P. Alldridge, Money Laundering Law: Forfeiture, Confiscation, Civil Recovery, Criminal Laundering and Taxation of the Proceeds of Crime (Hart Publishing: Oxford, 2003) 25.
    • 101 Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, s. 8(1).
    • 102 Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, s. 8(2).
    • 103 Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, s. 9(1), as amended.
    • 104 Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, s. 14A, as amended.
    • 105 Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, s. 10.
    • 106 Mann, above n. 26.
    • 107 Ibid. at 1816.
    • 108 Ibid. at 1861.
    • 109 See, e.g., Dáil Éireann, Written Answers-Garda Operations, 4 October 2000, vol. 523, per Minister O'Donoghue; 'Hands-on worker has armed raid conviction here', Irish Times, 6 March 1998; 'After comfortable start, “Dutchy” devotes rest of his life to crime', Irish Times, 20 June 2009.
    • 110 Ashworth and Redmayne, above n. 7 at 14.
    • 111 There would, therefore, appear to be justification for questioning whether the criminal law is, in fact, a lost cause. Cf. A. Ashworth, 'Is the Criminal Law a Lost Cause?' (2000) 116 LQR 225.
    • 112 See, generally, Meade, above n. 16.
    • 113 'Gilligan attempt to halt funds seizure adjourned', Irish Times, 19 October 2004; 'Cab seizes 600,000 of dealer's assets', Irish Times, 9 October 2007.
    • 114 Robinson, above n. 83 at 214.
    • 115 The UK Supreme Court came to a contrary conclusion in Gale v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] UKSC 49, holding that the presumption of innocence does not apply to non-conviction-based asset forfeiture proceedings.
    • 116 Banco Ambrosiano SPA v Ansbacher & Co. Ltd [1987] ILRM 669; Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd [1993] ILRM 145. The UK Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Gale v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] UKSC 49.
    • 117 Dáil Éireann, Private Members' Business-Organised Crime (Restraint and Disposal of Illicit Assets) Bill 1996, Second Stage, 2 July 1996, vol. 467, col. 2463, per Deputy E. Byrne.
    • 118 Dáil Éireann, Private Members' Business-Organised Crime (Restraint and Disposal of Illicit Assets) Bill 1996, Second Stage, 2 July 1996, vol. 467, col. 2411.
    • 119 Bater v Bater [1951-52] P 35; Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd [1957] 1 QB 247. Cf. R. Pattenden, 'The Risk of Non-persuasion in Civil Trials: The Case Against a Floating Standard of Proof' (1988) 7 CJQ 220; M. Redmayne, 'Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation' (1999) 62(2) MLR 167.
    • 120 Bater v Bater [1951-52] P 35 at 37. Similar sentiments were again expressed by Denning LJ in Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd [1957] 1 QB 247 at 258. See also the decision of Lord Scarman in R v Home Secretary, ex p. Khawaja [1984] 1 AC 74 at 112-14 which was cited with approval by Hamilton CJ in Georgopoulus v Beaumont Hospital Board [1998] 3 IR 132. But see the dissenting judgments delivered by Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Lloyd of Berwick in Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563.
    • 121 O'Keeffe v Ferris [1997] 2 ILRM 161 at 168. In Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd [1993] ILRM 145 at 183, there were allegations of anti-competitive practices, which carried potential liability of fines and other penalties. Keane J commented:
    • 129 Fellmeth, above n. 34 at 707.
    • 130 In Ireland, it has long been anticipated that the decision in Gilligan v CAB [1998] 3 IR 185 (HC), [2001] 4 IR 113 (SC) would be pursued in Strasbourg, while in Gale v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] UKSC 49, the UK Supreme Court indicated that this area would benefit from consideration by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article