AN ATTEMPT by convicted drug dealer John Gilligan and members of his family to overturn the seizure of property by the Criminal Assets Bureau was rejected by the High Court yesterday.
Some relief, however, may be granted to Gilligan’s daughter after the court accepted her late boyfriend had contributed £10,000 to the purchase of her property.
Mr Justice Kevin Feeney said Gilligan’s claims that the money he used to purchase the property were not the proceeds of criminal activity were “implausible”, “fabricated” and “incapable of belief”.
Gilligan and his estranged wife Geraldine Gilligan were seeking to retain Jessbrook House and equestrian centre at Mucklon, Enfield, Co Kildare, as well as nearby parcels of land and their original home at Corduff Avenue, Blanchardstown, Dublin.
His son Darren Gilligan wanted to hold on to his home at Weston Green, Lucan, Dublin, and his daughter, Tracey Gilligan, wanted to keep her home at Willsbrook View, Lucan. All the properties were frozen by the Criminal Assets Bureau in 1997.
The family brought the application under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, which allows property seized by Cab to be returned if it can be proven it was not acquired with the proceeds of criminal activity or that there has been “injustice” caused by the seizure.
Gilligan is serving 20 years in Cloverhill Prison for importing and selling cannabis. Yesterday’s case was held in the court building next to the prison.
In a three-hour judgment, Mr Justice Feeney outlined Mr Gilligan’s assertions about the sources of the money used to purchase the properties.
In 1994, Gilligan had told a court he had borrowed £4 million from a Lebanese casino owner, Joseph Saouma, to buy Jessbrook and had provided a sworn affidavit from the man signed in Beirut stating he had given the loan. He claimed he did not pay back the loan, but later claimed that he had made the repayments.
In a subsequent case, he attributed the source of his funds to profits he made on currency exchange while in the Netherlands. He shared these profits with a business partner called “Ed Ponytail”, he had told the court.
Then in evidence last year, he said he made most of his money through successful gambling at home and in casinos abroad.
Mr Justice Feeney highlighted the contradictions in Gilligan’s accounts. He said the story about the loan from Mr Saouma was improbable and “if sums of such magnitude had been made available and were subsequently repaid”, there would have been documentary evidence to support it.
The story of having earned money through exchanging currency while in the Netherlands was “so implausible as to be incapable of belief”, Mr Justice Feeney said. He also said Gilligan, “an experienced and determined gambler”, actually lost as a punter.
Ms Gilligan had given evidence that she provided funds for the purchase of Mucklon in 1987 from the proceeds of an unfair dismissals case, but Mr Justice Feeney did not believe her.
Nor did he believe Darren Gilligan, who claimed his home was bought with proceeds from his personal injuries settlement which his father through gambling had increased to £78,000. He did accept, however, that the partner of Tracey Gilligan had contributed £10,000 in 1994 to the purchase of her home as a contribution to the upbringing of their child.
Mr Justice Feeney said he would take submissions on what should happen to that property next month. He also said he could not identify any basis to show the Cab seizures had caused an injustice.
MR JUSTICE KEVIN FEENEY ON JOHN GILLIGAN
“On a purely mathematical basis, a winning streak of 30 consecutive bets is highly improbable.”
“The profit rate and margin claimed by John Gilligan for his foreign exchange dealings was entirely unrealistic and therefore fabricated.”
“The court is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities . . . Joseph Saouma made no loan to John Gilligan or Geraldine Gilligan and that no sums were repaid and that the averments made to that effect by John Gilligan are untrue.”
“Such willingness to falsify and fabricate evidence demonstrates a lack of candour and establishes a willingness on the part of John Gilligan to swear on oath to matters which are untrue.
