MRS Geraldine Gilligan has failed in her High Court attempt to prevent the Criminal Assets Bureau from disposing of property, including eight ponies and furniture, seized from her premises last week.
Mr Justice Geoghegan, refusing an application yesterday by Mrs Gilligan for two injunctions against the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB), said he could not blind himself to the fact that the monies, the subject matter of the assessment, were alleged to have arisen from criminal activities.
Last week, Mrs Gilligan, of Mucklon, Enfield, Co Kildare, was granted a temporary injunction preventing the CAB from disposing of the properties seized.
Her husband, Mr John Gilligan is at present being detained in England on drug trafficking charges.
Mrs Gilligan stated on affidavit that she was the owner and proprietor of an equestrian centre at Jessbrook House, Enfield. She said she had been married to Mr John Gilligan since March 1974. Throughout their married life, until November/December 1994, she had no separate income on her own account and was never separately assessed for income tax.
She had been legally separated from her husband since July 1995.
Mrs Gilligan said that about August 6th last she received an assessment of income tax for the year 1994-95 in the sum of £1.6 million. She had been advised that the wording of this assessment indicated it been raised under Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1983, in respect of earnings the sources of which were not known to the inspector, or which were known to have arisen from an unlawful source of activity.
Mrs Gilligan sought two inter locutory injunctions until a full hearing of the action. The defendants were the CAB, Mr Barry Galvin, its chief legal officer, the Revenue Sheriff, Mr Frank Lanigan, and the Revenue.
Giving judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Geoghegan said Mrs Gilligan's main complaint was that she was prevented from appealing against the assessment within the statutory time limit on the grounds that she had not made an income tax return in respect of miscellaneous income covered by the assessment.
It had been submitted that she was not bound to make a return.
Alternatively, she had stated that she could not make a return because all the relevant documentation had been seized.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said he did not think it necessary to deal with this alternative complaint.
He was satisfied, on the first and main point, that she had an arguable case. He was equally satisfied that the defendants had an arguable defence based on the particular provisions of Section 105 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, and also on other grounds.
He would make no comment on the relative strengths or otherwise of each of the arguments. It was sufficient to state that there were serious issues to be tried.
The judge said that in his opinion damages were an adequate remedy. It was not suggested that there would be any problem executing judgment for damages against any of the defendants. The calculation of any loss should not present any problem.
If he was wrong, he would still be of the view that the balance of convenience favoured a refusal rather than the granting of an injunction.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said that granting only the first injunction would present very real difficulties for the sheriff as the assets would have to remain in his hands, with the attendant problems of the live animals.
If the second injunction were, granted, there would be a substantial risk that the assets would be dissipated.
Mr Patrick Hunt, counsel for Mrs Gilligan, asked for a stay on the judge's decision for 24 hours so that they could go to the Supreme Court. The judge said he would not put a stay on his refusal.