Application to hear appeal against decision to appoint a receiver over Dublin property dismissed

Application to hear appeal against decision to appoint a receiver over Dublin property dismissed

The Supreme Court has dismissed an application to hear an appeal against a lower court's decision to appoint a receiver over a Dublin property deemed to have been acquired with the proceeds of crime.

In 2019, following an application by the Criminal Assets Bureau, the High Court held that assets, including a house located at 83 Casement Drive, Finglas in Dublin were the proceeds of crime.

The court held that the house, as well as the other items including a quantity of cash, were beneficially owned by alleged illegal drug-trafficker Jason Boyle, but were registered in the names of his parents Laurence (Larry) and Rosaleen Boyle of Coolebrook Cottages, Finglas West to conceal their son's involvement.

The Boyles opposed the application and had rejected CAB's claims that the assets were acquired in part or in full by monies derived from Jason Boyle, who denies he is involved in trafficking drugs.

In 2016 CAB, secured freezing orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act against the Boyles in respect of various assets including the three bedroom house located at Casement Drive.

CAB claimed that Jason Boyle lived at the property, with an estimated worth of €250,000 had been extensively renovated after it was purchased in 2013.

One of the bedrooms converted into a walk-in closet and there was also a jacuzzi and a sauna installed, high-end electronics including a 65-inch tv and a surround sound system.

The kitchen had also been extended and bulletproof glass had also been installed, CAB also alleged.

Representing themselves in the proceedings the Boyles had claimed that the property at Casement Drive was acquired for €70,000 in 2013 with a €60,000 loan from Mrs Boyle's father.

A High Court judge rejected the Boyle's claims and after deeming the property and other items the proceeds of crime appointed Mr Kevin McMeel, CAB's legal Officer, as receiver of the house.

The High Court's decision to appoint a receiver over the house was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which in January of this year dismissed the Boyle's appeal.

The Boyles then sought to have their appeal, aimed at overturning the receiver's appointment, considered by the Supreme Court.

In a written determination issued this week the Supreme Court comprised of Mr Justice Donal O'Donnell, Mr Justice Peter Charleton and Ms Justice Mary Irvine dismissed the Boyle's appeal.

The court said the Boyles had not raised any issue that would allow the appeal against the receiver's appointment be heard by the Supreme Court.

Having considered the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court said that it was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before the High Court, particularly in relation to the insurance status of the premises, which would justify the appointment of a receiver.

Most Read in Business