A businessman and convicted drugs dealer will soon find out whether he will lose about $1 million in assets including his home, which prosecutors alleged last week were largely paid for through the proceeds of drugs crime.

Aldo Pace, who last year pleaded guilty to drug charges, is fighting the Crown?s attempts to seize his assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Pace, 49, who has not yet been sentenced for two charges of handling cocaine with intent by him or another person to supply, must prove the assets were earned honestly.

After hearing two days of arguments last week, which included evidence to determine whether Pace?s wife was a co-owner of his North Shore, Pembroke home, Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons adjourned the case for judgment. Pace is due to return to court today.

Last week, Victoria Pearman, representing Pace, argued that the Crown had simply included ?every penny he?d ever earned? as drug proceeds.

The ?court has an important role in checking against assumptions? in order to prevent injustice, she stated last Tuesday.

Ms Pearman also reminded the court that no attempt was made over the years in question by the defendant to hide the money that moved freely between several Bermudian accounts ? years during which he was said to be gainfully employed in a family business including Aldo?s Carpets.

But Mrs. Justice Simmons pointed out that it was not the locations of Pace?s cash that were in question, but the sources of that cash. The defence acknowledged the obscurity of these sources, but asserted that the Paces ran a family business that operated in cash.

But Ms Tyndale questioned the integrity of the evidence used to back up this claim, and also the legitimacy of Mrs. Pace?s alleged financial investment in her ?matrimonial home.?

Without the house, Ms Pearman argued, Mrs. Pace and her teenage son would be left homeless, and would become dependant upon Government.

Pace?s wife had claimed she was a co-owner of her and her husband?s ?matrimonial home? having become a co-signee after Pace was released on bail and before his plea of guilty in Supreme Court last year.

Represented by Elizabeth Christopher, Mrs. Pace attempted to prove that she had made sufficient contributions toward the house to legitimise her assertion of third party interest.

Crown counsel Paula Tyndale said there was no evidence presented to show that Mrs. Pace was regularly working or that she was capable of making contributions towards the house payments.

Ms Tyndale also said the timing of her co-signing on the property was suspicious.

The case was adjourned until today when Mrs. Justice Simmons will set a sentencing date.