The High Court has granted an application by the Criminal Assets Bureau to enter judgment against Dubliner Mr Gerry Hutch for more than £2 million for alleged unpaid income tax and interest.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Morris, yesterday entered judgment for £2,031,551 against Mr Hutch. The figure is made up of an assessment of £782,080 for income tax for nine years while the balance is in respect of interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month.
Last month, lawyers for the CAB told the court there was evidence Mr Hutch was the owner of property not in his name and claimed there had never been an explanation as to where he had got the means to purchase it.
In his reserved judgment yesterday Mr Justice Morris rejected all the arguments advanced on behalf of Mr Hutch against entering judgment in the amount sought.
The decision is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court but the judge refused an application for a 21-day stay on his order for judgment in the event of an appeal.
At a previous hearing, a CAB officer said it was investigating the whereabouts of more than £4 million which CAB suspects is the proceeds of criminal activities by Mr Hutch.
At that time, Mr Hutch unsuccessfully applied for an order directing the CAB to return the deeds of certain Dublin properties seized by the bureau so that he could fund a legal defence to the proceedings against him.
A Garda superintendent said the CAB had issued orders over the past two years to perhaps 20 to 30 Irish financial institutions seeking information about Mr Hutch's assets.
The superintendent said they were carrying out investigations into the robbery of an armoured van at Marino in January 1997 when £1.7 million in cash was stolen. A second major crime was the armed robbery from a security depot at Clonshaugh, Dublin in January 1996, when more than £3 million was taken.
Mr Hutch was suspected of a number of other crimes where cash was stolen, the officer added. CAB was "pursuing a money trail" to the extent of trying to trace monies allegedly stolen by Mr Hutch and hidden away in bank accounts.
The CAB rejected as untrue Mr Hutch's claim that he had no monies available to him and was required to sell certain properties to pay legal fees.
The superintendent said that for years Mr Hutch had sought to hide and disguise properties and monies in his control, including placing them in the names of other persons and placing them in offshore accounts.
Giving his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Morris said the claim was made under Section 8 of the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 by the CAB, which was an officer of the Revenue Commissioners nominated by them to exercise the powers and functions of the Collector General.
The claim was in respect of income tax alleged to be due by Mr Hutch in respect of the years ending April 5th, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996 and 1997.
Mr Justice Morris said Mr Hutch was ably represented by Ms Gabrielle M. Wolfe, solicitor. She had argued that judgment should not be entered on four grounds including whether the appropriate procedures under the tax acts were followed. She also submitted that a section of the 1997 Taxes Consolidation Act, purporting to give a revenue officer the judicial function of determining the tax due by a taxpayer, was unconstitutional.
Ms Wolfe also argued that because Mr Hutch had availed of the tax amnesty, the CAB was estopped from pursuing its claim for judgment.
Mr Justice Morris rejected all four grounds advanced. He noted that if Mr Hutch was relying on the tax amnesty, it was incumbent on him to produce the relevant certificate indicating he had availed of it, but this was not produced. He found Mr Hutch had also failed to comply with the relevant sections of the tax acts and there was no evidence he had lodged an appeal against the tax assessment with the Appeals Commissioners.
The judge found that, specifically, no point was raised concerning the right of the plaintiff to maintain the proceedings nor was any challenge raised to the formal proofs which had been submitted to the court on behalf of the CAB.
He had considered those proofs and was of the view that they were satisfactory to maintain the present claim, subject to consideration of the four points raised by way of defence.
On the application of Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the CAB, Mr Justice Morris entered judgment for the amount sought.
Applying for a 21-day stay, Ms Wolfe said she intended to put in a notice of appeal. The judge said he would refuse the application for a stay but told her she was at liberty to appeal if so advised.