Sir, I refer to Jean Cashman's recent letter, in which she suggests that it is still possible to reopen the files of those who were given the benefit of the 1993 Tax Amnesty but who abused it to launder the proceeds of drug dealing and organised crime.
She rightly states that the 1993 Act required a declaration that the activity from which the income arose was not an illegal source. The terms of the relevant declaration required by Section 2 are that "neither the declared amount nor any part of the amounts arose from, or by reason of, an unlawful source or activity (other than the evasion of tax or the non compliance with the provisions relating to exchange control)". She is also correct in saying that the benefit of an amnesty can be withdrawn where such a declaration is "proven to be false".
But the term "proven to be false" is crucial. The word "prove" means "to discharge an onus of proof by evidence". Creating a doubt or casting a shadow of suspicion over someone does not "prove" anything. If there were sufficient "proof" to declare the amnesty withdrawn from any individual because the monies in question were the proceeds of crime, the person in question would, most likely, be indicted and convicted of such crimes.
The legislation in question casts no obligation on any of the people who availed of it to assist with any enquiry as to the source of their money. And it guarantees that they will retain the benefit of the amnesty unless, and until, somebody proves by admissible evidence that the monies they laundered through the amnesty process were in fact the proceeds of crime.
So it isn't a question of lacking political will. The tax amnesty legislation, which I strongly and vigorously opposed in the Dail as a charter for criminals, contained paper safeguards which, on close examination, are completely unworkable.
No ordinary taxpayer facing assessments or tax audits by the Revenue is given a guarantee that nothing will happen to him or to her unless the Revenue can prove" that he or she had underpaid tax. On the contrary, the vast majority of taxpayers have to prove that assessments are wrong. So there is, regrettably, one law for the criminal and another law for the taxpayer. Yours, etc., Dail Threann, Baile Atha Cliath 2.