The Supreme Court has rejected a claim that court applications by the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) for orders "freezing" assets believed to be the proceeds of crime must be brought within specified time limits as set out in the statute of limitations.
The court was giving judgment on a claim made on behalf of two unnamed applicants that the statute of limitations should apply when applications for freezing orders are being made under Section Three of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 (POCA).
It had been argued that the statute of limitations should apply in CAB applications for freezing orders. That statute prevents an action to recover certain goods being brought after the expiration of two years from the date "on which the cause of action accrued".
In a reserved judgment yesterday, the Supreme Court said there was no statute bar provision in the 1996 POCA. There was no section in the statute of limitations that could conceivably cover freezing applications. Accordingly, Section Three applications were not subject to any statute bar provisions.
The claim that the statute of limitations should apply to Section Three applications was among arguments put forward on behalf of two applicants in proceedings brought against them by CAB.
In December 2002, the applicants had sought to have CAB's proceedings against them struck out on several grounds, including the statute point. The High Court rejected the application, and the case came before the Supreme Court by way of appeal.
If the statute of limitations challenge had been successful, it could have severely limited CAB's ability to look for freezing orders for assets allegedly involved in crime going back over years.