An arrest warrant is issued against the brothel owner for failing to pay € 243,000

The High Court has issued an arrest warrant against the owner of a brothel convicted of not having paid 243,000 euros to the State for profiting from his criminal activity.

Martin Morgan (55), who operated the brothel out of a Dublin apartment and now has an address on Highbury Road, London, previously claimed that he had spent the proceeds of his criminal activity on business expenses.

He denied organizing prostitution and running the brothel on the Bachelor’s Walk floor between August and October 2005. He was convicted by a jury after a 19-day trial and jailed for three years in 2008.

Subsequently, the Circuit Criminal Court issued a confiscation order of some € 252,000 in assets based on a calculation of what the probable net profit of the company was during the offending period. The figure was based on testimony from people who worked at the brothel about the number of shifts they worked and their hourly rates.

Morgan appealed the confiscation order and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

Generating millions of euros

The Court of Appeal heard in 2018 that the state at one stage alleged that the brothel generated millions of euros each year.

On Wednesday, the Office of Criminal Assets (CAB) approached Judge Paul Coffey in Superior Court to enforce the confiscation order. The judge was told that while the original confiscation order had been for 252,583 euros, that sum had been reduced by 9,000 euros in cash, which had been seized by gardai from Morgan and confiscated from the state.

Cab’s lawyer argued that Section 19.2 of the 1994 Criminal Justice Act provides for a prison term of up to three years for failure to comply with a confiscation order requiring the defendant to pay up to € 250,000.

Extradition

Since Morgan was no longer in the jurisdiction, Cab believed that the best approach was to first secure his attendance in court through an arrest warrant that could be used to extradite him. He was aware of the request, but had chosen not to attend court.

Morgan’s attorney said his client had filed an affidavit a year ago explaining his position and there had been no attempt to investigate what he said, other than the state side saying he was not accepted.

Morgan’s side also disagreed with the process that was being used by the State to seek his involvement and incarceration. This can often be accomplished by an order giving the state the first call about your income or other sources of income, the attorney said.

An arrest warrant against someone was typically used for not responding to bail. Morgan was not out on bail and had been convicted, jailed and served his sentence, he said.

Judge Coffey said he would grant the request to issue an arrest warrant to ensure their attendance. This was in circumstances where he was aware of the request and where he was represented by legal counsel.

The State had the right, at first sight, to initiate an execution process and the judge considered that the court should endeavor to secure their assistance before proceeding further.