The legislation under which the Criminal Assets Bureau operated, while undoubtedly "novel", was effective and almost all of its components had been tested in the courts and found valid, the Supreme Court was told yesterday.
Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for the CAB, said the "novelty" of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 had been overstated.
The components of the Act were all readily identifiable and had been subjected to scrutiny and testing in the constitutional process.
The Act did not contravene the Constitution.
Mr O'Donnell was opposing two appeals arising from High Court orders in favour of the bureau.
The first appeal is by an individual and company - neither of which may be named by court order - and the second has been taken by John Gilligan, who is serving a sentence in Portlaoise Prison for drugs offences.
In both appeals, the constitutionality of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 is being challenged.
Mr O'Donnell defended those provisions of the Act for forfeiture and confiscation of assets which CAB believed to be the proceeds of crime. He said the CAB had to make a court application prior to taking any steps to freeze or seize assets.
There was also a provision for further court applications if new facts arose.
The hearing continues today.