Crime must not be allowed to pay

The fact that a €2 million tax bill has been levied on the former Minister for Justice, Mr Ray Burke, by the Criminal Assets …

The fact that a €2 million tax bill has been levied on the former Minister for Justice, Mr Ray Burke, by the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) arising from the receipt of corrupt payments will help to reassure the public that crime - eventually - does not pay.

The year-long delay in taking action on the Flood tribunal report, which found that Mr Burke had received £200,000 in corrupt payments over three decades, is difficult to understand. But now that action has been initiated, sequestering illegally acquired assets should be a first step. The full rigour of the law must be brought to bear on all those who engaged in white collar crime and in planning corruption.

Mr Justice Flood spent five years examining allegations of corruption against Mr Burke. From the time he acquired his former home in north County Dublin from Oakpark Developments in 1973, Mr Burke was regularly in receipt of corrupt payments from the builders Brennan and McGowan. A sum of £30,000 was given to him by the builders, JMSE, in 1987, at about the same time as they were said to have paid Mr George Redmond, the former assistant city and county manager for Dublin.

This is the second high profile individual that the Criminal Assets Bureau has targeted over corrupt planning matters. And they have chosen to go the money route. Two years ago, Mr Redmond avoided a prison term on tax charges brought against him by CAB. Mr Burke may not be so lucky.

READ MORE

A successful prosecution depends on having witnesses who are prepared to give evidence, as was evident when a recent notorious Limerick case collapsed. It is particularly difficult to prosecute a bribery case because witnesses would lay themselves open to charges. In spite of that, former government press secretary, Mr Frank Dunlop, may become a star witness in cases of corruption against politicians and others. And changes to CAB legislation may help to root out corruption. Provision will be made for the seizure and forfeiture of a bribe. And a new offence of "criminal conduct" will be created.

In all of this, the recipients of bribes are the ones most at risk of prosecution. Those rich and powerful individuals who corruptly sought planning permission or other ministerial favours - and who gained to a far greater extent financially - may walk free. This should not happen.

Fourteen months ago, an interim Flood report was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions which outlined cases involving corrupt payments and the evidence of key witnesses. There would appear to be adequate grounds in that report for charges of perjury to be brought against a number of people. At the very least, where the work of the tribunal was found to have been deliberately hindered, those responsible should have to bear the legal costs.

There is no denying corruption exists in our society. The question is how to tackle it effectively.