THE chief legal officer of the Criminal Assets Bureau told the High Court yesterday he was satisfied that Mrs Geraldine Gilligan had been for many years a full partner with her husband, Mr John Gilligan, "in his conduct of criminal enterprises".
Mr Barry Galvin, in an affidavit, said he was satisfied that at least £1.7 million had been spent on an equestrian centre at Enfield, Co Meath. The assets which went to make up the centre were the proceeds of criminal activity.
He was giving evidence in an application by Mrs Gilligan for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the bureau disposing of property which has been seized. She was granted a temporary injunction last Friday.
The injunction would continue until the hearing of an action brought by Mrs Gilligan, of Mucklon, Enfield. She claims she is the owner of an equestrian centre at Jessbrook, Enfield. She is also seeking the return of the goods.
Mrs Gilligan, in a replying affidavit, denied she was the full partner with her husband or any other person in the conduct of any criminal enterprise and said she was not aware of her husband's financial affairs.
Mr Galvin said Mr John Gilligan had been involved in criminal activity for many years. He was arrested by UK customs officers at Heathrow Airport prior to boarding a flight to Amsterdam on October 6th. He was in possession of a large silver suitcase containing £330,000 in cash of various denominations.
Mr Galvin said that after his appointment as Inspector of Taxes, he assessed the liabilities of Mr and Mrs Gilligan. To advance the investigation he had been given access to confidential Garda intelligence files relating to the them. He had also examined financial records which had come into the possession of gardai following court orders served on financial institutions.
"As a result of my review of all the information before me, I am satisfied that Mrs Gilligan is, and had been for many years, a full partner with her husband in the conduct of his criminal enterprises," said Mr Galvin.
He was satisfied that at least £1,685,553 was spent at Enfield on the purchase of land and on the construction of the equestrian centre and residential accommodation. The bulk of the expenditure was between 1994 and 1996.
Mr Galvin said he did not believe there had been a bona fide separation between Mr and Mrs Gilligan. She had failed to disclose that after the date of her purported separation large sums of money continued to pass through bank accounts maintained in her name. He did not accept her statement that the only income she earned in her own right for the year 1994/95 was from the operation of the equestrian centre.
Mr Galvin said Mrs Gilligan had failed to take any adequate steps to conform with her statutory obligations relating to self assessment. She had an obligation to make a return on or before January 31st this year for the tax year 1994/95. Documents were seized from her accountant on August 7th, and the first request made for their return was November 5th. She had not availed of an offer to inspect the relevant documents.
Mr Galvin said Mrs Gilligan had been permitted to retain certain items of ordinary furniture including beds, a fridge/freezer, a 32 inch television and video combination, all of which represented ordinary comforts while living at home.
Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Mrs Gilligan, said his client had conducted her own equine business since January 1995. Mr Galvin had been appointed a Tax Inspector on September 16th last and, that same day, raised an assessment on Mrs Gilligan for more than £800,000 which, with interest, came to more than £1 million.
He claimed Mr Galvin had waited until the time for an appeal had run out and then said "I've gotcha". It was a crude plot and one the Revenue authorities would not have adopted. He was not alleging anything more than enthusiasm and inexperience but it was somewhat "gung-ho", and it had to be the first time an Inspector of Taxes had raised an assessment on his first day in office.
Mr Hardiman said that on November 14th, the Criminal Assets Bureau made a demand for £1,147,000. On November 20th, the Revenue Sheriff for Co Kildare, Mr Frank Lanigan, arrived at Mrs Gilligan's home with a certificate which certified default and authorised him to seize goods.
One of the issues was whether the bureau was authorised to issue a certificate to the sheriff. There was no doubt the bureau was authorised by statute to issue a demand. The bureau had not been given collecting powers and was discharging the Revenue Collector's functions.
Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the bureau, Mr Galvin, the Sheriff and the Revenue, said there was a collector who was a member of the bureau and he had signed the appropriate certificate. He would not be disclosing the name of the person who was the collector in the bureau. The members who carried out certain roles were entitled to anonymity.
Mrs Gilligan, in an affidavit, said she was legally separated from her husband since July, 1995, and was owner and proprietor of the equestrian centre. On August 6th last, gardai had visited her accountant's offices and confiscated all her books and records. When goods were being seized by the sheriff, she was told the goods would be sold immediately 48 hours had expired. She claimed she had been completely deprived of her ability to carry on her business.
Mrs Gilligan said she had had no opportunity to dispute the assertion that she was liable, in her own right, to pay £1,147,000. She was prepared to make income returns when her books were given to her.
Garda Chief Supt Michael F. Murphy, who is attached to the bureau, said in an affidavit the bureau was created to identify assets derived from criminal activity and to take appropriate action to deprive or deny persons of such assets or benefits.
Mrs Gilligan, in a second affidavit, said the only income she earned in her own right for 1994/95 was £200 a week from the equestrian centre. Her accountant had informed her on November 22nd that he had resigned, and said his institute had recommended he discontinue working for her. She was advised she was never obliged to make a return of income for 1994/95 and could not be prevented from disputing the assessment, which was not income she had earned.
Mr Hardiman said Mrs Gilligan had no income as it was deemed in law to be the income of her husband. Any assessment was to be made on the husband, who was the chargeable person. He alone had the obligation to make the return and pay the tax.
Mr Nesbitt said Mr Galvin had come in for criticism and it was alleged he was "gung ho", somebody who was determined to make his mark and said "gotcha now". These were disgraceful allegations. The judge said he did not want the court to be used for speeches for tomorrow's newspapers.
Mr Nesbitt said Mrs Gilligan had had two opportunities to appeal the position in which she now found herself and she availed of neither, although she had the assistance of her lawyers. He said she was a chargeable person. A person who was in receipt of gains and profits which were subject to tax had to ensure a return was made. The inspector had formed the view that the income was from the proceeds of crime.
The hearing continues.