Court adjourns CAB plea to lift stay on judgment over alleged unpaid VAT

The Criminal Assets Bureau has asked the High Court to lift a stay on a judgment for alleged unpaid VAT and interest for £103,350 against Mr George Mitchell, currently held in a Dutch jail.

Mr Shane Murphy, for CAB, made the application so the bureau could register the judgment as a mortgage over two properties held in the name of Mr Mitchell. The court was told CAB believed Mr Mitchell might attempt to sell or otherwise encumber his property to dissipate his assets outside the jurisdiction.

Ms Justice Laffoy adjourned the application for one week.

In July CAB secured judgment from Ms Justice Laffoy for £103,350 against Mr Mitchell, who was assessed as owing money to the Revenue authorities for unpaid VAT and interest. Mr Mitchell was described at an earlier court hearing as being known for complicity in unlawful killings and drugs importation.

Ms Justice Laffoy put a stay on her order to allow Mr Mitchell to appeal the Revenue assessment, to lodge £25,000 with the Revenue and lodge a sum for interest on that amount.

Chief Supt Fachtna Murphy, the head of CAB, said then in an affidavit that the date of the assessment was March 26th, 1997. The VAT period was from March/April 1992, to July/August 1993, and related to a Dublin licensed premises, the Spinning Wheel, Mary Street, in which it was alleged Mr Mitchell had had an interest.

In a letter Mr Mitchell claimed he had not owned the pub and claimed it had been owned during the assessment period by a company called Delta Inns Ltd. Mr Mitchell, in affidavits sworn in March, said he did not deny "any association with the Spinning Wheel public house" but was not a person engaged in the supply of taxable goods or services.

In her decision at that hearing, Ms Justice Laffoy said CAB was entitled to get judgment and she would make that order, but put a stay on certain conditions.

If Mr Mitchell was the taxable person, then the period would be from July 1992 to February 1993. During that period, on the evidence, Mr Mitchell had an interest in the premises. She said that if Mr Mitchell had not resolved his difference by December 31st, then the Revenue would be at liberty to have final judgment.

In court yesterday Mr Murphy applied for an order lifting the stay, at least to permit CAB register the judgment over the two properties held in Mr Mitchell's name in the sums of £103,350, plus interest, less the sums already paid. CAB was making the application as security.

In an affidavit, a solicitor acting for CAB said a bank draft in favour of the Revenue for the sum of £42,5000 was received on August 20th, on account of Mr Mitchell's VAT liabilities. A receipt was issued for the amount, together with a letter indicating the document received did not constitute a valid return.

The solicitor said he had written a letter to Mr Mitchell's solicitor indicating that Mr Mitchell seemed intent on delaying the implementation of the steps on which the stay was based.

A reply was received on October 12th, indicating that Mr Mitchell had engaged accountants in London to process the appeal, and four VAT returns were delivered on October 16th. He said those returns did not constitute valid returns.

In an affidavit from a London-based solicitor acting for Mr Mitchell, the solicitor referred to efforts to obtain books relating to the Spinning Wheel. The solicitor said a Dublin solicitor acting for Mr Mitchell had lodged a payment of £42,500 on August 20th, 1998, as directed by Ms Justice Laffoy in accordance with her order of July 17th. The interest calculation was prepared upon the assumption that it had arisen evenly over the accounting periods in question, but that return and the accompanying calculations were rejected by CAB in September.

The solicitor said Mr Mitchell attempted to satisfy CAB's requirements by causing an accountant to prepare VAT returns for the Spinning Wheel for July/ August 1992, September/October 1992, November/December 1992 and January/February 1993, which calculated liability at £14,032 plus interest.

The solicitor rejected the claim that Mr Mitchell was intent on delaying the implementation of the steps on which the stay was based.