It is fortuitous, to put it mildly, that the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act of 2005 was signed into law just days before a number of arrests were made in connection with money-laundering.
The Act seeks to tie together issues involving the Criminal Assets Bureau, money-laundering and corrupt payments. It is based on eight years' experience of the operation of the CAB, and continuing revelations concerning corrupt payments to politicians and others.
The Act extends the reach of the CAB to allow its officers and agents pursue those involved in transnational criminal activity. The kind of circumstances provided for include: where the property liable to seizure as the proceeds of criminal activity is outside the State; where the individual being targeted resides outside the State but the property is within the State; and where the suspected criminal activity is conducted outside the State and is an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.
The Act also provides for a new kind of order, a "corrupt enrichment order". This is aimed at those who benefit from the enhancement of the value of property as a result of "corrupt conduct". This is defined in the Prevention of Corruption Acts, including the most recent which broadens the definition, and the 1995 Ethics in Public Office Act. Clearly, this section of the Act is aimed at anyone who might, for example, pay politicians to rezone land for development.
A "corrupt enrichment order" will allow a court to order a person pay a sum, calculated by the court as the full amount of the corrupt enrichment, to the Minister for Finance or another person.
The burden of proof in such proceedings means that there will be a presumption of corrupt conduct where three conditions are filled, unless the contrary can be proved.
Had such a measure been in place prior to the Flood/Mahon tribunal, certain individuals could have been pursued in the courts, along with the developers who gave them money, via corrupt enrichment orders.
The Act also inserts a new section into the 2001 Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act providing for the seizure of a gift suspected of being a bribe.
These measures could be seen as a closure of the stable door after the departure of the horses. However, they can also be seen as a welcome message that the culture of tolerating corruption is at an end, and that those implicated in it will be pursued vigorously. They will act as a still-needed deterrent to those tempted to offer inducements to public officials to smooth their path to enrichment.