The Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab) is seeking High Court orders directing James ‘Mago’ Gately to make up alleged losses in the value of his former home, caused by his removal of fixtures and fittings from the house.The three-bedroom house at Glin Drive, Clonsaugh, Dublin 17, was seized by Cab from Hutch gang member Gately after the High Court deemed the property to be “overwhelmingly” derived from the proceeds of crime. The property was sold for €308,000 at auction last November. The court previously heard that Gately purchased the house in 2013 for €125,000 and spent €440,000 on refurbishments. In finding the house to be derived from the proceeds of crime in June 2024, the court made orders under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, which prohibits the disposing of or diminishing the value of the targeted assets.In February 2025, Gately removed the staircase, kitchen, doors and other fittings from the property. The house was “very badly damaged” when Cab seized the house in April 2025, the court previously heard.David Dodd, barrister for the bureau, told Judge Liam Kennedy on Wednesday that he was seeking an order under section 5 of 1996 Act, in effect seeking Gately to make up the property value loss caused by his removal of the stairs and other fittings. Cab has alleged Gately – who was present in court at Wednesday’s hearing – has been linked to armed robberies, gangland murders and drug dealing, but he has never been convicted of any serious offences.Opening written evidence sworn by property valuer Fiona O’Reilly, Dodd submitted that had the materials not been removed from the house by Gately, the house could have sold for €425,000. This represented a loss of €117,000, he said. In the case of a cash sale, the property could have reached €385,000, counsel said, representing a loss of €77,000. He submitted that most properties owned by Cab are purchased with cash, but that this was not exclusively the case. David Perry, barrister for Gately, opposed the making of the order on various grounds. Perry said his client did not believe there was a specific restriction on removing the various fixtures from the house. He submitted that Gately was not formally served with order made following the court’s finding that the house was the proceeds of crime. Counsel noted that Judge Alexander Owens – who previously presided over the case – stated last year that the terms of the order had not been explicitly articulated in court. Perry also submitted there was no dependable evidence before the court measuring the losses to the property value.Perry submitted that valuer O’Reilly had not considered the impact of the litigation on the value of the house, and the impact of orders made in the respect of the house.Perry also stated that Gately did not have the means to repay the sums of money that the bureau is seeking.Responding, Dodd submitted that counsel was “playing on the assumption” that properties subject to orders under the 1996 Act do not reach market value. He submitted that this was not the case.The judge said he would give his decision on the application in October.