10 October 2002 Edition
Why do we need a new Assets Bureau?
BY KERRY LAWLESS
As the Dáil gears up to hold a full debate on the Interim Report of the Flood Tribunal on Wednesday and Thursday (change?), the main government response has been the announcement that yet another new agency, the Corruption Assets Bureau, is to be established.
While the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, believes this will hit corrupt businessmen where it hurts most, in their pockets, the question remains: Why do we need a new agency to deal with the issues raised by Justice Flood?
The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB), set up in October 1996, has established its expertise in ferreting out ill-gotten gains and exposing links between criminal activity and corruption in public life.
Originally set up to target the assets of organised crime in the wake of the killing of journalist Veronica Guerin, CAB soon extended its investigations into tax evasion and social welfare fraud.
Though there have been concerns that the Criminal Assets Bureau could overstep its powers and target individuals based on onerous allegations and hearsay evidence, for the most part, it has satisfied the courts that the individuals it targets are benefiting from crime.
The Criminal Assets Bureau is already actively involved in corruption cases. As part of its current investigation into planning corruption in west Dublin, CAB is examining the relationship between former Dublin Assistant City and County Manger, George Redmond and a number of property speculators. These include Charlie Duffy and James Kennedy, both of whom have been the subject of investigation by the Flood Tribunal.
It also has proven expertise in tackling the criminal activity of public representatives. The former lord mayor of Dublin and deputy leader of the Progressive Democrats, Michael Keating, has been under investigation by the Criminal Assets Bureau for over three years for tax evasion and his alleged role in an international VAT fraud scheme.
Having spent much of its early years fighting off challenges to its legal and constitutional right to exist, CAB has proved so successful in recovering the proceeds of illegal activity that other countries, including Britain, intend to adopt the same model.
With such an effective agency in place, the question remains: why does the government feel it needs another agency specifically for corruption? Why not extend the Criminal Assets Bureau's remit, add to its resources and ensure that issues concerning its accountability are addressed? Surely crime is crime is crime.
There is a need for new legislation to enable the Criminal Assets Bureau to fully pursue those benefiting from corruption. Set up under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, it currently does not have the power to seize the assets of people found by a tribunal to have committed corruption or apply to the High Court to trace assets corruptly acquired or whose value has been enhanced by corruption.
While the Fianna Fáil proposal, first set out in its election manifesto, to bring forward a Proceeds of Corruption Act, may go some way to providing the legal basis required, the government has failed to make the case for the establishment of a new agency.
Some key questions remain:
Why is there a need for a new and separate agency?
How long will it take for a new agency to be up and running?
Why impose a further burden on the already hard-pressed taxpayer?
Until these questions are satisfactory answered, the consensus will be that the proposal for a new agency is simply a delaying tactic on the part of the government to postpone the day of reckoning for corrupt former friends and colleagues.
As the Dáil gears up to hold a full debate on the Interim Report of the Flood Tribunal on Wednesday and Thursday (change?), the main government response has been the announcement that yet another new agency, the Corruption Assets Bureau, is to be established.
While the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, believes this will hit corrupt businessmen where it hurts most, in their pockets, the question remains: Why do we need a new agency to deal with the issues raised by Justice Flood?
The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB), set up in October 1996, has established its expertise in ferreting out ill-gotten gains and exposing links between criminal activity and corruption in public life.
Originally set up to target the assets of organised crime in the wake of the killing of journalist Veronica Guerin, CAB soon extended its investigations into tax evasion and social welfare fraud.
Though there have been concerns that the Criminal Assets Bureau could overstep its powers and target individuals based on onerous allegations and hearsay evidence, for the most part, it has satisfied the courts that the individuals it targets are benefiting from crime.
The Criminal Assets Bureau is already actively involved in corruption cases. As part of its current investigation into planning corruption in west Dublin, CAB is examining the relationship between former Dublin Assistant City and County Manger, George Redmond and a number of property speculators. These include Charlie Duffy and James Kennedy, both of whom have been the subject of investigation by the Flood Tribunal.
It also has proven expertise in tackling the criminal activity of public representatives. The former lord mayor of Dublin and deputy leader of the Progressive Democrats, Michael Keating, has been under investigation by the Criminal Assets Bureau for over three years for tax evasion and his alleged role in an international VAT fraud scheme.
Having spent much of its early years fighting off challenges to its legal and constitutional right to exist, CAB has proved so successful in recovering the proceeds of illegal activity that other countries, including Britain, intend to adopt the same model.
With such an effective agency in place, the question remains: why does the government feel it needs another agency specifically for corruption? Why not extend the Criminal Assets Bureau's remit, add to its resources and ensure that issues concerning its accountability are addressed? Surely crime is crime is crime.
There is a need for new legislation to enable the Criminal Assets Bureau to fully pursue those benefiting from corruption. Set up under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, it currently does not have the power to seize the assets of people found by a tribunal to have committed corruption or apply to the High Court to trace assets corruptly acquired or whose value has been enhanced by corruption.
While the Fianna Fáil proposal, first set out in its election manifesto, to bring forward a Proceeds of Corruption Act, may go some way to providing the legal basis required, the government has failed to make the case for the establishment of a new agency.
Some key questions remain:
Why is there a need for a new and separate agency?
How long will it take for a new agency to be up and running?
Why impose a further burden on the already hard-pressed taxpayer?
Until these questions are satisfactory answered, the consensus will be that the proposal for a new agency is simply a delaying tactic on the part of the government to postpone the day of reckoning for corrupt former friends and colleagues.