Debate contribution: The draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Recovery of Cryptoassets and Investigations: Codes of Practice) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 25 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Recovery of Cryptoassets and Investigations: Codes of Practice) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4498372
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I put on record my thanks to all Members for this positive debate and for the contributions that they have made. I also place on record my thanks to the Chair of the Committee for her remarks, as well as the Deputy Chair, and put on record my appreciation for the scrutiny that has been applied by the Committee on these issues. In response to the question about the safeguards in the exercise of POCA powers, POCA contains a wide range of very important tools to be able to tackle criminal finances. The search and investigation powers are, as acknowledged in the debate, invasive in respect of an individual's privacy, so oversight obviously has to be applied to agencies when they use them. The exercise of powers by the PSNI is subject to the usual oversight of the Policing Board. However, in addition to the codes of practice, which provide an additional layer of protection to the public, there is judicial oversight of the use of those codes. Organised crime is not victimless and is not conducted in a vacuum. Its detrimental impact can be seen and felt in our communities, where it causes real harm and wrecks lives and livelihoods. It also diverts money away from the public services that we need to use on a day-to-day basis. Organised crime is completely and utterly unacceptable, and we want to do all that we can to stop it. Law enforcement partners in the organised crime task force are committed to tackling organised criminality in all its forms. Removing the proceeds of crime is an important part of our combined efforts. Investigating and removing criminal assets has a powerful disruptive effect on organised criminals, can impact on their so-called status, can cause problems between criminal groups and restricts their ability to fund further criminality. Whilst the use of crypto assets in the Northern Ireland context has been assessed as still not as prevalent as it is in other parts, it is, nevertheless, a growing area of concern for the PSNI and other investigatory bodies. Therefore, it is important that we keep pace with change and stay ahead of those criminals who are very agile in how they change their modes of operation to try to evade scrutiny and detection. The order that is being debated ensures that Northern Ireland officers with functions under the Proceeds of Crime Act can exercise their powers, which are underpinned by up-to-date and effective guidance. The order also ensures that safeguards are in place for those who may be the subject of a POCA-related investigation. I commend the order and ask that the Assembly accept it by approving the motion before the House.
447 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.52 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:49 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.