THE SUPREME Court has reserved judgment on an appeal by drug dealer John Gilligan and members of his family aimed at preventing their properties being sold by the Criminal Assets Bureau on grounds they represent the proceeds of crime.
In submissions yesterday, Gilligan argued there was never any definitive finding by the High Court that the properties were the proceeds of crime.
Gilligan asked the five-judge court to rule that proceeds of crime findings by the High Court in 1996 and 1997 were not final orders because, he argued, it was anticipated there would be further hearings in which evidence would be presented.
The Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab), in opposing the appeal, argued a final order declaring their property to be the proceeds of crime was made in July 1997. The Gilligans never took the opportunity to seek an oral hearing into that order despite the fact this option was available under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, Cab said.
The property at issue includes Jessbrook House in Enfield, Co Meath, where Geraldine Gilligan lives. She claims this was bought as a derelict house for IR£7,000 before her husband put money into renovating both it and an attached equestrian centre.
The other properties are the former family home in Blanchardstown and two houses in Lucan bought by Gilligan for his son Darren and daughter Tracey.
During the hearing, lawyers representing Ms Gilligan and her children argued they were entitled to a "substantive" hearing of the original proceeds of crime application.
Gilligan made his own oral submission to the court yesterday and supplied a file to the judges which he said contained 32 pages of argument and written submissions based on 59 transcripts of previous hearings.
In replying submissions, Michael McDowell SC, for Cab, said the claims that there was no oral evidence in the original applications were not correct.
It was open to the Gilligans, under Section 3 (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act to have challenged the High Court order on the grounds that an injustice may have occurred but they had not done so, Mr McDowell added.
If the Supreme Court rejects the appeal, Cab will be entitled to proceed to sell the properties.