The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on a challenge by a Co Clare man to the validity of search warrants issued to the Criminal Assets Bureau to carry out searches of his home, company premises and the office of an accountant.
Mr Dylan Creaven is facing trial in Britain in connection with an alleged £100 million VAT fraud.
During the searches, large quantities of documents were seized and later sent to the British authorities.
However, after a High Court decision last February that some of the warrants were not validly issued, the court ordered the return of those documents to the CAB. Both Mr Creaven and the CAB have appealed aspects of that High Court decision to the Supreme Court.
The two-day appeal concluded yesterday and Mrs Justice Denham, presiding over the five-judge court, said the court would reserve its decision.
Mr Creaven was arrested in London on November 19th, 2002, and is on bail awaiting trial on charges in connection with the alleged fraud, which it is claimed, involved high-value computer components and the alleged movements of these goods in a circle between various companies to generate VAT payments which had not been declared to the English authorities.
Mr Creaven and his companies have denied the claims.
Last year, in High Court proceedings, Mr Creaven and two of his companies, Silicon Technologies (Europe) Ltd and Bradenville Holdings Ltd, challenged two sets of search warrants issued the day before his arrest in London.
They disputed five search warrants issued by District Court Judge David Anderson on November 18th, 2002, under Section 55 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 which authorised searches of Mr Creaven's home at Woodstock View, Ennis, the premises of three companies, including Silicon Technologies (Europe) Ltd, and the premises of an accountant.
Mr Creaven also challenged seven search warrants, also issued on November 18th, 2002, by Judge Anderson, under section 14 of the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996.
In a reserved judgment last February, the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, struck down the five section 55 warrants, on the grounds that the British authorities had failed to adhere to British law when seeking those warrants. However, he upheld the validity of the seven section 14 warrants.
In the Supreme Court, Mr Creaven has appealed against the decision on the section 14 warrants while, in a cross-appeal, CAB and the State have challenged the decision quashing the section 55 warrants.