The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal about the appointment of a receiver over a Dublin property deemed to have been acquired with proceeds of crime.
Following an application by the Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab), the High Court held in 2019 that assets, including a house at 83 Casement Drive, Finglas, were the proceeds of crime.
The court held the house, as well as other items including a quantity of cash, were beneficially owned by alleged illegal drug-trafficker Jason Boyle, was registered in the names of his parents Laurence (Larry) and Rosaleen Boyle of Coolebrook Cottages, Finglas West, to conceal their son’s involvement.
The Boyles had opposed the application and rejected Cab’s claims the assets were acquired in part or in full by monies derived from Jason Boyle, who denies he is involved in trafficking drugs.
Cab, represented by Michael Binchy BL, secured freezing orders in 2016 under the Proceeds of Crime Act against the Boyles in respect of various assets including the three-bedroom house located at Casement Drive. Cab claimed Jason Boyle lived at the property, with an estimated worth of €250,000, and extensively renovated it after it was purchased in 2013.
One of the bedrooms converted into a walk-in closet, with a jacuzzi and sauna installed, and there were high-end electronics including a 65-inch TV, and a surround sound system. The kitchen had been extended and bulletproof glass was installed, Cab alleged.
Representing themselves, the Boyles had claimed the property at Casement Drive was acquired for €70,000 in 2013 with a €60,000 loan from Mrs Boyle’s father.
Ms Justice Carmel Stewart rejected the Boyles’ claims and, having deemed the property and other items the proceeds of crime, appointed Cab’s legal officer, as receiver of the house. That decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which in January last dismissed the appeal. The Boyles then sought a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a written determination published this week, three Supreme Court judges - Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell, Mr Justice Peter Charleton and Ms Justice Mary Irvine, refused permission to bring a further appeal.
The court said the Boyles had not raised any issue to meet the criteria for an appeal before the Supreme Court. The court was satisfied there was sufficient evidence before the High Court, particularly in relation to the insurance status of the premises, which would justify the appointment of a receiver.