Moriarty Tribunal

You are currently browsing the archive for the Moriarty Tribunal category.

Irish Times reports by Colm Keena related to the Moriarty Tribunal.

Haughey deals investigated. January 9, 1998.
Desmond paid nothing to Haughey ‘prior to 1994′. January 9, 1998.
Haughey had salary of £5,000 when land deals were done. January 10, 1998.
Celtic Helicoptor’s Ansbacher trail. January 14, 1998.
McCreevy lists missing files sought by Moriarty tribunal. May 7, 1998.
Ben Dunne may have paid Haughey debt. July 24, 1998.
Dunne may face new round of questioning. August 14, 1998.
Method of payments facilitated tax evasion. August 14, 1998.
Harney says Dunnes should have told of £1/2m payouts. November 6, 1998.
Ben Dunne cash went to Haughey helicopter company. November 7, 1998.
Carlisle Trust is linked to £180,000 Dunne payment. November 11, 1998.
Current tribunals and Government inquiries have cost £4m to date. November 28, 1998.
Moriarty works on with private probe. November 28, 1998.
Moriarty tribunal questions finances of Doyle hotels. November 28, 1998.
Moriarty tribunal to sit in private next week. December 3, 1998.
Haughey’s £2m tax charge reduced to zero. December 16, 1998.
Decision to dismiss tax assessment expected to be reheard. December 17, 1998.
Lack of detail on companies believed to be reason for tax decision. December 18, 1998.
Carlisle Trust contacted by tribunal. December 18, 1998.
Haughey tax case prepared at highest level. December 19, 1998.
Harney takes legal advice on Lowry company report. December 23, 1998.
Moriarty tribunal uncovers extra £1m payment. January 22, 1999.
Ex-Taoiseach’s £300,000-a-year lifestyle ‘unacceptable’. January 22, 1999.
Lowry under tribunal investigation. January 22, 1999.
Haughey funds inquiry told of £1m-plus payments. January 22, 1999.
Detail of AIB debt of £1.143m disclosed. January 29, 1999.
Donor of £750,000 to Haughey unknown, tribunal is told. January 29, 1999.
Tribunal takes Moriarty to centre stage. January 29, 1999.
Overdraft to become focus for tribunal. January 30, 1999.
Mystery cheque that ended up in Haughey account. January 30, 1999.
Hints of further disclosures on Tripleplan cheque. February 3, 1999.
Motive of first Dunne payment to Haughey to be investigated. February 3, 1999.
Unusual method of rewarding his executives outlined by Ben Dunne. February 5, 1999.
Dunnes won appeal against £30m tax bill from Revenue. February 5, 1999.
Cash for Haughey raised in Bangor, Far East. February 6, 1999.
First evidence of Haughey directly soliciting money. February 10, 1999.
Celtic Helicopters investor in Lotto deal. February 10, 1999.
Haughey believed broker invested in company. February 11, 1999.
US investor headed firm contracted to run lottery. February 11, 1999.
Haughey firm attracted money from investors far and wide. February 12, 1999.
Names of helicopter shareholders revealed. February 12, 1999.
Circuitous journey for £100,000 cheque. February 13, 1999.
How Haughey diced with soaring debt. February 17, 1999.
Haughey left AIB officials chasing £1m debt. February 17, 1999.
Bank sought to avoid debt ‘confrontation’. February 18, 1999.
Bank’s dream customer became a nightmare. February 19, 1999.
Traynor chaired committee overseeing Irish Helicopters. February 20, 1999.
Helicopter investor meets lawyers. March 2, 1999.
£10,000 cheque part of start-up capital. March 3, 1999.
Tribunal to hear of £10,000 Dargan cheque. March 3, 1999.
B of I director with the offshore account. March 4, 1999.
Dargan says he had offshore account. March 4, 1999.
Bankruptcy decision seen as `doomsday’ situation. March 5, 1999.
Broker set up Celtic loan to pay premiums. March 6, 1999.
Witness’s name used as code for Charles Haughey. March 6, 1999.
Tribunal found undeclared payments to Lowry. March 26, 1999.
Bank accounts raise questions for Revenue. March 26, 1999.
The Revenue, the politics and the consequences. March 26, 1999.
Haughey gives papers to Revenue. March 26, 1999.
Mystery surrounds gift of house to Haughey. March 27, 1999.
Debt paid shortly after becoming Taoiseach. May 19, 1999.
Haughey remark led Pairceir to resign. May 25, 1999.
Revenue did not pursue Haughey for £300,000. May 25, 1999.
Tribunal to study Lowry’s funds and Haughey-Ansbacher links. June 21, 1999.
Tribunal finds controversial payment made to Lowry. June 22, 1999.
£25,000 payment `generous but not excessive’. June 23, 1999.
Tribunal uncovers £1 1/2m banked by Haughey. June 23, 1999.
Some questions that Moriarty left unanswered. June 26, 1999.
Financiers had no dealings with Lowry. June 26, 1999.
Judge said to own £1/2m CRH shares. June 30, 1999.
New lead surfaces on Lowry’s `lost’ Dunnes cash. June 30, 1999.
Revelations raise questions for tribunal and Government. July 1, 1999.
Party leaders cannot recall being told of shareholding. July 2, 1999.
Parties did not know of Moriarty shares. July 2, 1999.
No conflict of interest, says Byrne on CRH. July 3, 1999.
Both sides to appeal elements of judgment. July 7, 1999.

Sarah points out an article by Colm Keena in the IT today, where he quotes Bertie Ahern’s speech after the publication of the McCracken Tribunal report. Here is the quote from the Dail archive:

In so far as I could with little available records I am satisfied, having spoken to the person who administered the account, that it was used for bona fide party purposes, that the cheques were prepared by that person and countersigned by another senior party member. Their purpose was to finance personnel, press and other normal supports for an Opposition leader. There was no surplus and no misappropriation. The person involved had sole control of the account. The money came in, the person lodged the cheque, dealt with the bills and invoices and paid those not covered by the ordinary allowance. The account as far as her excellent recollection goes was normally short, not the other way around. I have spoken to her at some length. She has served many Taoisigh beginning with Mr. Jack Lynch. We consider her to be totally honourable.

It is fair to ask the question now, what on earth is Ahern on about?

Let’s look closer at the payments made out of the Leader’s Allowance. I will quote at length from Tribunal transcripts, this one from July 14th 1999, Mr Coughlan speaking. It is pretty instructive on the amounts involved:

The Tribunal has examined the administration of the Party Leader’s Allowance by Fianna Fail during the period of Mr. Haughey’s leadership and also in the period since he ceased to be leader. The Tribunal has obtained Memoranda of Evidence and statements from Ms. Eileen Foy, who was involved in the administration of the account; from Mr. Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach who was one of the signataries on the account; and from Mr. Sean Flemming, a senior executive in the Fianna Fail party in the period following Mr. Haughey’s retirement as leader.

Mr. Haughey has been asked to comment on the material to which I have already referred to and on the material to which I will now refer in slightly more detail but has made no comment.

The Tribunal has obtained from the Department of Finance a Schedule of the amounts paid to Mr. Haughey as leader of the Fianna Fail party in the years from 1984 to 1992 and they were as follows:

1984: £181,215.
1985: £189,950.
1986: £196,612.
1987: £78,056.
1988: £90,666.
1989: £93,107.
1990: £113,207.
1991: £123,137.
1992: £12,033.

The allowance was paid monthly in installments by way of payable order made out to Mr. Cathal O’hEochaidh, TD. This explains why the payment for 1992 was a mere payment of £12,033 as Mr. Haughey was no longer the leader of the Party after February of that year.

The Leader’s Allowance was operated in the main from a current account at Allied Irish Banks, Baggot Street. With the consent of the Fianna Fail party, the Tribunal has obtained access to some of the remaining available records relating to the account. The account was opened in the name of Haughey, Ahern and MacSharry, namely Mr. Charles Haughey, Mr. Bertie Ahern, and Mr. Ray McSharry, and the account number was 30208-062. The Tribunal has examined drawings from the account between February, 1984 and November, 1992 and the drawings from the account between those dates are as follows:

28th February, 1984: £12,310.45.
26th March, 1984: £10,000.
10th May, 1984: £20,000.
22nd June, 1984: £5,000.
6th July, 1984: £5,246.
3rd August, 1984: £10,000.
10th August, 1984: £12,828.47.
25th October, 1984: £5,400.
2nd January, 1985: £5,000.
9th April, 1985: £5,821.20.
20th September, 1985: £5,338.20.
7th October, 1985: £5,000.
23rd April, 1986: £10,000.
29th April, 1986: £5,195.39.
29th April, 1986: £10,000.
21st May, 1986: £20,000.
5th August, 1986: £10,000.
29th October, 1986: £25,000.
12th November, 1986: £10,000.
5th September, 1986: £5,666.81.
9th January, 1987: £5,000.
5th August, 1987: £5,000.
9th November, 1987: £5,000.
4th January, 1988: £7,509.20.
6th April 1988: £5,700.
14th July, 1988: £6,649.95.
26th September, 1988: £6,832.82.
1st December, 1988: £5,767.11.
27th February, 1989: £6,995.55.
24th April, 1989: £11,173.76.
21st June, 1989: £25,000.
22nd June, 1989: £5,758.95.
20th July, 1989: £47,090.56.
21st September, 1989: £25,000.
5th October, 1989: £10,720.
11th October, 1989: £20,000.
2nd November, 1989: £5,000.
12th December, 1989: £9,724.37.
28th December, 1989: £5,073.53.
7th March, 1990: £5,727.23.
22nd March, 1990: £13,600.
30th April, 1990: £8,830.37.
19th October, 1990: £5,440.
4th February, 1991: £8,332.34.
13th February, 1991: £12,914.50.
4th April, 1991: £5,000.
11th September, 1991: £10,000.
18th September, 1991: £7,500.
10th October 1991: £5,750.

Now, these figures identified by the Tribunal are the major drawings on the account and those which are in excess of £5,000. There were of course lesser drawings on the account. The Tribunal has drawn the attention of some of the individuals dealing with the account to the fact that there appears to have been a substantial number of round sum withdrawals from the account and, in particular, to the fact that a number of these round sum withdrawals were in the form of payments to cash. Copies of some of the cheques drawn on the account have become available to the Tribunal and from these cheques, it appears that on the 4th April, 1991, a cheque was drawn on the account in the sum of £5,000 payable to cash. This cheque was signed by Mr. Bertie Ahern, An Taoiseach, then the Chief Whip and by Mr. Charles Haughey, then the Taoiseach;

That on the 11th September, 1991, another cheque was drawn on the account in the sum of £10,000, again payable to cash and signed once again by Mr. Ahern and also by Mr. Haughey;

That on the 18th September, 1991, a further cheque in the sum of £7,500 was again payable to cash. The signatories on the account were Mr. Ahern and Mr. Haughey;

On the 16th June, 1989, a cheque payable to cash was drawn on the account, this time in the sum of £25,000. This was also signed by Mr. Ahern and Mr. Haughey.

The Tribunal has not been able to obtain every cheque in respect of round sum withdrawals from the account. However, from the table I have just referred to, it will be clear that there were very substantial round sum lodgments in other years than the years in which the cheques I have just mentioned were drawn. Sorry, I should have just said where I used the word lodgments, I should have said drawings.

For instance, in 1984, £50,400 in round sums were withdrawn. In 1985, the sum of £10,000 in round sums were withdrawn. In 1986, the sum of £50,000 and in 1989, the sum of £75,000 in round sums were withdrawn.

During most of this time, the account was administered either in part or in whole by Ms. Eileen Foy. Ms. Eileen Foy was an employee of Fianna Fail from 1977, initially as Secretary to the Head of Research. She has informed the Tribunal that that at the time, the Research Office was part of the Leader’s office. The Leader was Mr. Jack Lynch. She has informed the Tribunal that the Head of Research was at that time responsible for the administration of the Leader’s Allowance and as the secretary to the Head of Research, she was involved in a lot of clerical administrative work in relation to the accounts through which the allowance was operated.

She has informed the Tribunal that in 1977, when Fianna Fail went into Government, the Head of Research left the employment of the party and she became the Secretary to a number of backbench TDs and senators but she retained the function of administering the Leader’s Allowance, much as she had done when working as secretary to the Head of Research. In other words, it would appear that Ms. Foy continued to fulfill the function of administering the account notwithstanding the fact that she no longer reported to the Head of Research, but to a number of backbench TDs and senators.

During this time, Mr. Lynch was still the Leader and he did not cease to be Leader until December of 1979 when he was replaced by Mr. Charles Haughey, TD. Following Mr. Haughey’s election to the leadership of Fianna Fail, Ms. Foy was asked by Mr. Haughey to work as secretary to the then Chief Whip, Mr. Sean Moore, TD. The Chief Whip’s office was attached to the Taoiseach’s office and Ms. Foy continued to operate the Leader’s Allowance while working as secretary to Mr. Moore.

Fianna Fail were out of Government from 1982 to 1987 and, while in opposition, Ms. Foy began to work for Mr. Haughey and when Fianna Fail were returned to Government, Ms. Foy continued to operate as one of Mr. Haughey’s private secretaries until his retirement as Taoiseach and as Leader of Fianna Fail in February, 1992. During all that time, she continued to be responsible for the administration of the Leader’s Allowance.

The day-to-day operation of the Leader’s Allowance entailed writing cheques on the bank account to which the payments from Central Funds were lodged. The writing of cheques from this bank account required two signatures. There were three authorised signatories on the account, Mr. MacSharry, Mr. Bertie Ahern and Mr. Haughey, but cheques required two signatories only. Ms. Foy was responsible for keeping the cheque books, preparing the cheques for signature and ultimately obtaining the signatures of the requisite authorised signatories on them.

The actual payment of the Allowance was by way of a cheque in favour of the party Leader, in the case of Fianna Fail in favour of Mr. Haughey. Ms. Foy has informed the Tribunal that Mr. Haughey would endorse his name on the back of the cheque and give it to her to lodge in the Party’s bank account and these lodgments she made personally at Allied Irish Banks in Baggot Street.

It appears that all debits from the account were by way of cheques written on the account. Ms. Foy has informed the Tribunal that she kept details of all cheques in a ledger in which she would note the date of the cheque, the payee, the sum, and the purpose for which the cheque was drawn; that during the period in which she operated the account, there were two or three ledgers. In addition, files were kept for some period of time but it would seem that as the office from which the account was administered moved from time to time, these may not have been retained as the records of the accounts were transferred from office to office. Also, Ms. Foy would have noted the payee and/or the purpose of the cheque on every cheque on the cheque stub as she was preparing the cheque. Neither the files, the cheque stubs, nor the ledgers are now available.

Because the cheques to which I have already referred contain the signatures of Mr. Ahern and Mr. Haughey, Ms. Foy was asked to comment on the signing of cheques and she has indicated that although in addition to Mr. Ahern and Mr. Haughey, Mr. MacSharry was also a signatory, she did not recall asking him to sign cheques and would not have so requested him after he left Dublin on his appointment as European Commissioner in 1989. The system she used to obtain a signature on a cheque was that generally she would ask Mr. Ahern to sign a number of blank cheques in advance of her completing the details and that she would then retain those cheques until she had completed the details. Once the cheques had been completed by her, she would go to Mr. Haughey’s office with a list of the cheques, and the invoices to which they related and that Mr. Haughey would go through each item and that having satisfied himself that the cheques were in order, would then sign them. Ms. Foy’s recollection is that the cheques were used to meet a range of expenses out of the Leader’s Allowance of which the main areas were expenditure in respect of Research, Press, and Party Leader’s Office and the salary of people employed in that office.

The Tribunal has drawn a number of cheque payments and withdrawals from the account to the attention of Ms. Foy. It is the cheque payments made out to cash on which Ms. Foy has been asked to comment. She has stated that she has no specific recollection of cash drawings from the account, nor any recollection of any purpose for which such cash sums may have been applied. However, she has informed the Tribunal that it is possible she may have cashed cheques for some of the round sum figures I have just mentioned. From the Tribunal’s point of view, if Ms. Foy did not cash these cheques, then it is a question as to how they were cashed and as to what use was made of the cash obtained.

In the period during which Ms. Foy administered the account, that is during Mr. Lynch’s period in office and during Mr. Haughey’s period in office, there was no outside scrutiny or control of the Leader’s Allowance other than that of the Leader himself. In order to further scrutinize the manner in which cash monies appear to have been raised using cheques drawn on this account, the Tribunal has sought access to the various books in which the dealings on the account were recorded, i.e., the ledgers and files I have already mentioned. Ms. Foy has stated that she has no knowledge of what happened to the lodgers and other records after her resignation following Mr. Haughey’s replacement as Leader of Fianna Fail by Mr. Albert Reynolds, TD. Although all of the contents of Mr. Haughey’s office appear to have been put in boxes as part of his movement out of the Taoiseach’s office, Ms. Foy is not in a position to say whether these items were specifically included in Mr. Haughey’s boxes.

Following Mr. Haughey’s resignation as Party Leader and the resignation of Ms. Eileen Foy, the administration of the account was taken over by Mr. Sean Fleming. Mr. Fleming proposed to the new Leader of Fianna Fail, Mr. Albert Reynolds, that the Party Leader’s account should be administered by the Fianna Fail Head Office and that the party would maintain separate books, records, bank accounts and financial accounts in relation to the account and that there would be a separate audit carried out on the funds from each accounting period. Mr. Fleming has informed the Tribunal that Mr. Reynolds agreed and the account has been operated along those lines ever since. The system now being operated as set up by Mr. Fleming originally entails the preparation of a list of payments at Fianna Fail Headquarters. This list with accompanying cheques which already have been made out is submitted to the Party Leader for signature and also to the second signatory for co-signature by him. If, due to their schedules, politicians are not available to sign cheques, then cheques would instead be issued on Fianna Fail Headquarters’ own account and, in due course, that bank account would be recouped out of the Party Leader’s account. In the ordinary way, full accounts are written up at the end of each year and these accounts are audited and reported on by an independent firm of accountants, Messrs Coopers & Lybrand. This system has continued in operation since Mr. Ahern became Leader.

Mr. Ahern has provided the Tribunal with a Memorandum of Evidence concerning his involvement with the account during the tenure of office of Mr. Charles Haughey. He has informed the Tribunal that he has no recollection of ever having signed a cheque made out to cash in any significant amount. Mr. Ahern has informed the Tribunal that because of the volume of transactions through the account, combined with the necessity for the regular writing of cheques, a practice of pre-signing blank cheques was put in place for administrative convenience. A series of cheques would be pre-signed by a signatory on the account and thereafter the appropriate co-signatory would sign the cheque with the details of the payee and the amount of the cheque duly inserted thereon. Mr. Ahern has informed the Tribunal that he believed that as the account was being administered by a highly competent and efficient administrator and book keeper, the conduct of the account was believed to be proper and that, in addition, there was no evidence of any irregularity applying to the use made of the cheques which were drawn on account in this way.

With respect to the cheque of the 16th June in the amount of £25,000 and made payable to cash, Mr. Ahern has stated that this cheque was drawn at or about the time of the 1989 General Election, which was held on the 15th June, and he has stated that he believes that the likelihood is that he pre-signed a series of cheques in advance of the election date to allow the account to be operated so that normal business and trading debts could be discharged promptly. Mr. Ahern has informed the Tribunal that the cheque does bear his signature, but that the writing of the word “Cash” and the amount “£25,000.00″ both in numbers and in manuscript, is not in his writing and he believes that the cheque was one of the category of pre-signed cheques signed by him in accordance with the practice I have just described. So far as the other cash cheques mentioned already by me are concerned, Mr. Ahern’s position is the same in that he would not have signed them with any words or figures on them and that they must therefore have been pre-signed by him.

Its attention having been drawn to the Leader’s Allowance and to drawings from that account, the Tribunal examined the credits to the Haughey Boland No. 3 account. That is the account already referred to in the Tribunal’s hearings from which payments were made to Mr. Haughey as part of the Haughey Boland bill paying service. The Tribunal has considered whether there is any connection between drawings from the Leader’s Allowance account and lodgments to that Haughey Boland No. 3 account.

It has not been possible, due to the absence of documents and bank records at Allied Irish Banks, to track withdrawals from Allied Irish Bank Baggot Street, Leader’s Allowance account. However, the Tribunal has noticed what appears to be a direct correspondence between two drawings from the Leader’s Allowance account and they are as follows:

Firstly, on the 24th April, 1986, there was a credit of £10,000 to the Haughey Boland No. 3 bill paying service account, an account operated for the benefit of Mr. Charles Haughey and on the same date, there was a withdrawal by way of a cheque in the sum of £10,000 from the Leader’s Allowance account.

Secondly, on the 29th October, 1986, there was a credit of £25,000 to the Haughey Boland No. 3 bill paying service account and on the same date, a drawing by way of cheque from the Leader’s Allowance in precisely the same amount, £25,000.

The Tribunal will wish to examine this material from a number of different standpoints. Firstly, the Tribunal will wish to examine the account of the Leader’s Allowance as a potential source of funds in accounts operated for the benefit of Mr. Haughey. From the Statements made available to the Tribunal, it would appear that certain aspects of the operation of the Leader’s Allowance account will require further scrutiny in the course of the evidence. They are the fact that a number of cheques on the account, of which copies are now available, appear could have been drawn on the account payable to cash in large round sums. These cheques share a number of features. Firstly, there is now no record of the purpose for which the cheques were drawn. The Administrator of the account has no recollection of the purpose for which the cheques were drawn and cannot remember whether she herself was involved in the drawing of them or in the cashing of them. The cheques appear to have been cashed at Allied Irish Banks, Baggot Street, the branch of the Bank in which they were drawn. They appear to have been signed by the co-signatory Mr. Haughey after they had been signed by Mr. Ahern and Mr. Ahern appears to have signed them in blank. In circumstances in which one of these cheques for £25,000 payable to cash was lodged to an Amiens account controlled by Mr. Des Traynor, the Tribunal will wish to examine evidence to ascertain whether any of the other cash cheques could have been lodged to that account or to any other accounts for the benefit of Mr. Haughey and whether, in addition, other circumstances ought to be taken into account in answering these questions, including the circumstance that two large round sum withdrawals from the Leader’s Allowance account in 1986 correspond with two equivalent credits to the Haughey Boland account from which Mr. Haughey’s bill paying service was operated.

While the Tribunal will wish to consider the aspects of the Leader’s Allowance I have just mentioned in the context of the sources of funds in accounts operated for the benefit of Mr. Haughey, it may also be necessary to consider the account in the context of payments made to Mr. Haughey. In other words, the examination of the account appears to be relevant both to Terms of Reference (a) and (b) of the Tribunal’s Terms of Reference.

So far as Term of Reference (a) is concerned, that is to say the term of reference dealing with payments to Mr. Haughey, the Tribunal’s examination of lodgments to the Leader’s Allowance account suggest that between the year 1984 and 1992, with one exception, the lodgments appear to exceed the total amount of the Leader’s Allowance. The documentation and records available to the Tribunal has not enabled the Tribunal to examine precisely the correlation between individual lodgments to the account and the payment of individual installments of the Leader’s Allowance. For this reason, to distinguish between the total amount of lodgments in any one calendar year and the total amount of the Leader’s Allowance in any one calendar year, might not give precise indication of the excess of lodgments in the account in any one year over and above the amount of Leader’s Allowance for that year. However, in a number of years between 1984 and 1992, the amounts lodged appear to be substantially in excess of the amount of Leader’s Allowance for the relevant years and in 1986 and in 1991, they appear to have been in excess of the Leader’s Allowance to the extent of something in the order of £100,000 and in 1989, the amount seems to be in excess of the Leader’s Allowance in the order of £200,000, more or less.

The additional lodgments appear to have been mixed with the installments of the Leader’s Allowance paid from Central Funds. From the information available to the Tribunal to date, it has not been possible to identify the source of these additional lodgments. However, to the extent to which they appear to constitute the funds of third parties, that is parties other than the State by whom the Leader’s Allowance was supplied, they may represent the source of payments to Mr. Haughey in those years. It is certainly a question as to whether any of the payments to Mr. Haughey or to the accounts for his benefit in 1986 and 1989 could amount to payments within the meaning of Term of Reference (a).

Turning now to payments from Irish Permanent Building Society:

A number of documents have been made available to the Tribunal by Irish Permanent Building Society on the basis that they appear to be relevant to the Tribunal’s Terms of Reference. Of the documents made available, two consist of cheques drawn on Irish Permanent Building Society’s account with the Bank of Ireland in favour of Mr. Charles Haughey. Each of these cheques was dated the 7th June, 1989. One is in the sum of £20,000 and the other is in the sum of £10,000. Each of these cheques was made payable to Charles Haughey and each of them was signed by the same two directors of the society, namely Dr. Edmund A. Farrell and Mr. Enda Hogan. These cheques appear to have been lodged to the Dublin Airport branch of the Bank of Ireland. Each of the cheques was paid on the 15th June of 1989. Mr. Haughey has been asked to comment on the cheques and on the fact that they were so lodged but has, to date, not done so.

Celtic Helicopters, a company which has featured in the proceedings of the Tribunal already, has an account at that Bank’s branch at Dublin Airport. An examination of the Celtic Helicopters account at the Dublin Airport branch of the Bank of Ireland indicates that the sum of £30,000 was lodged to that account on the 7th June of that year. It was withdrawn some short time later on the 21st June. The withdrawal was by way of a cheque. The Tribunal does not have a copy of that cheque.

At the time of the payments to Mr. Haughey on the account of the Irish Permanent Building Society, the Society made a number of other payments to the three largest political parties, i.e. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, and the Labour Party. These payments appear to have been connected with the then impending General Election. The payment to Fianna Fail was for £65,000, Fine Gael was £25,000, and the payment to the Labour Party was £10,000. The cheque stubs corresponding with each of the cheques describe the payments as follows: To Fianna Fail and Fianna Fail parties as “Subs”. The payment to the Labour Party is described as “Contribution”. The payment for £10,000 to Mr. Charles Haughey which appears to have been lodged to the Bank of Ireland Dublin Airport account of Celtic Helicopters, is described on the cheque stub as a “Sub”. The cheque for £20,000 made payable to Mr. Haughey and which also appears to have been lodged to the Celtic Helicopters Dublin Airport Bank of Ireland account is described as “B. Lenihan”.

In the accounts of the Irish Permanent Building Society, the document which appears to be in the nature of a cheque journal or analysis book refers to each of the four payments I have just mentioned. They are described as “Political Subs”. No distinction is made in the entries on the journal as between the political parties nor is any reference made to Mr. Charles Haughey himself.

The Tribunal has sought information from Dr. Edmund Farrell and Mr. Enda Hogan, the signatories on the two cheques. Dr. Farrell is endeavouring to obtain further documentation in order to assist the Tribunal and will be in a position to provide a Statement or a Memorandum of Evidence at that stage. A Statement has been furnished to the Tribunal by Mr. Enda Hogan, the other signatory of the cheques.

Mr. Hogan has informed the Tribunal that each of the cheques was signed by him after they had been signed by Dr. Farrell. He has informed the Tribunal that he has a recollection that at some time he was told by Dr. Farrell that the late Mr. Brian Lenihan was going to undergo a liver transplant operation and that Dr. Farrell thought that the Irish Permanent should make a contribution towards his expenses. This is Mr. Hogan’s response to the fact that the cheque stub in respect of a cheque for £20,000 made payable to Mr. Charles Haughey contains a reference to “B. Lenihan”. Mr. Hogan does not, however, appear to have been aware of this at the time the cheque was countersigned by him. He has no recollection of countersigning the cheque payment for £10,000 to Mr. Charles Haughey but assumes that it was a political contribution.

Mr. Hogan has also informed the Tribunal that shortly after he joined the Society in 1983, he recommended that if any political contributions were to be made to the Fianna Fail party, contributions should also be made to the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party. He has also informed the Tribunal that the decision as to the amount that each party should receive was made solely by Dr. Farrell and also that, as far as he is aware, all requests for political contributions were handled by Dr. Farrell and that his, Mr. Hogan’s, only function was to countersign the cheques and that he dealt with no person other than Dr. Farrell in relation to any of these requests for political contributions.

Mr. Hogan as also informed the Tribunal that he is not aware whether any other members of the Board of the Society or any Executive of the Society was aware of the writing of the cheques or of the beneficiaries of them, apart from Ms. Margaret Coyle, Dr. Farrell’s secretary. He has also informed the Tribunal that he understands that there is no reference in the Board Minutes to any of these payments and has stated that it would have been normal at the time for Dr. Farrell to make decisions on these matters without reference to the Board.

The Tribunal will wish to examine whether there were any other payments by the Building Society or by any of its Directors to Mr. Haughey and whether the payments I have just mentioned in the amount of £20,000 and described as being for “B. Lenihan” was used for the purpose envisaged or for some other purpose.

Charles Haughey, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland is a criminal.

One of the most damning facts to emerge from the Moriarty Tribunal that was published today is the fact that Haughey robbed nearly €200,000 from a fund set up to save Brian Lenihan’s life.

I just want to repeat that in my own words – Haughey was the type of individual who robbed money from another human who needed that money for a life saving operation.

Today is a (rare) good day for justice in Ireland

The Irish Times reports that the Moriarty Tribunal report will be published today. It should make for interesting reading to say the least.


Update:
You can get it at theMoriarty Tribunal Report. It’s a PDF so you need Adobe Acrobat. It’s a fairly hefty 7mb download.

I especially like this bit (my emphasis)

Ref 22-13:

Given the totality of the evidence heard in relation to the Tripleplan payment, and subsequent payments by Mr. Ben Dunne to Mr. Haughey, communications had by Mr. Haughey with the Revenue Commissioners, and the course of dealings had between Mr. Dunne, Mr. Noel Fox and the Revenue Commissioners, it is the conclusion of the Tribunal that Mr. Haughey in return for such payments acted with a view to intervening improperly in a pending tax case of great magnitude. Whilst recognising that ultimately the Dunnes tax appeal was successful, Mr. Haughey’s role in this matter is particularly noteworthy in the context of the state of thepublic finances in 1987.One of the salient features of his involvement in the Revenue handling of the matter was his persistence in intervening with successive Chairmen, matched only by Mr. Dunne’s persistence in requesting his intervention. This is not explicable, at least on Mr. Dunne’s part, on the basis of a desire to meet the Chief Officer of the agency he was dealing with when, without Mr. Haughey’s involvement, the Dunnes Trustees had already gained access to and made contact with Mr. Pairceir. At a time when the finances of the State were under extreme pressure, Mr. Haughey, as the head of the Government, had a particular duty to maintain the paramountcy of Revenue in collecting taxes, and this ought to have been reflected in a studious avoidance of unnecessary contact as opposed to his persistence in advertising to Revenue his interest in Dunnes affairs so as to signal his support for a radical reduction in the amount of tax being demanded by Revenue.

Or in other words, in return for getting money from Dunne, Haughey did make represenatations to the Revenue on Mr Dunne’s behalf.

And more:

Insofar as any personal aspects did emerge from evidence heard, they undoubtedly included an acknowledgement of much diligence and capability in the manner in which Mr. Haughey discharged his day-to-day responsibilitiesas Taoiseach, but also included elements of fear and domination engendered by him in individuals in both private and public sectors.

The word ‘corrupt’ only appears once in the entire 704 pages.

I note that Denis O’Brien is resigning directorships all over the place, including deputy governor of Bank of Ireland.

Friends of the ‘controversial’ businessman have denied that his hasty retreat from the Irish business world has anything to do with the impending report of the Moriarty Tribunal – Yeah, right.

I have said in the past that denial is a crucial factor when living in a corrupt country like Ireland. This is especially important for those directly involved in politics, business and even the media.

However, sometimes, this absolute refusal to face reality can result in some bizarre reasoning. The following examples will make the point.

Former Irish Press editor and historian Tim Pat Coogan, a man who is widely respected, made the ludicrous claim at the Humbert Summer School that Haughey’s corruption was due to head injuries he suffered in a car accident in the 1960s.

The Fianna Fail politician and form EU commissioner, Padraig Flynn also made bizarre comments about Haughey but I don’t pay too much attention to him because I genuinely believe he occupies a different reality from the rest of us. The second example is even more surreal.

Ben Dunne has learned that the Moriarty Tribunal is going to make damning findings against him. In a desperate attempt to avoid facing reality Dunne is claiming that various traumatic events in his life, like his kidnapping by the IRA in 1981, have affected his ability to recall certain matters under investigation by the tribunal.

By far the most crucial ‘forgotten event’ is a meeting between Dunne and a Revenue Commissioners chairman in 1987, arranged by Haughey, that resulted in a capital gains bill on the Dunnes Stores family trust being reduced by about €22 million. Dunne made a substantial payment to Haughey shortly after this meeting.

Dunne is asking rational people to believe that his traumatic experiences have only affected his memory on matters that could get him into serious trouble. In all other respects, his memory is apparently perfect.

If Moriarty does make the connection between Dunne’s payment and a Haughey ‘favour’ it will do serious damage to the campaign by Haughey supporters, led by Bertie Ahern, to fabricate the most grotesque lie in Irish history – That Haughey was really an honest man.

More on Haughey:

Charles Haughey lost £520,000 (€660,264) when the Ansbacher Deposits were discovered by the McCracken (Dunnes Payments) tribunal in 1997, it emerged yesterday.

Accounts within the secret deposits coded S8 and S9 belonged to Mr Haughey and were frozen along with the rest of the deposits when they were discovered. The money in Mr Haughey’s accounts was subsequently used to settle the tax liabilities of another unnamed taxpayer, the tribunal heard.

The tribunal heard that during negotiations with Mr Haughey’s tax advisers in 2002, the Revenue was told that Mr Haughey did not have access to the accounts, that they were not in his name, and that they should be considered dormant.

On Thursday, principal officer with the Revenue, Norman Gillanders, said the money in the S8 and S9 accounts had been used to settle the tax affairs of another taxpayer. A document shown yesterday stated that the balance in the accounts in September 1997 was about £520,000.

The tribunal was yesterday hearing further evidence in relation to the performance of the Revenue in raising taxes from Mr Haughey. As part of its negotiations with Mr Haughey’s agents in 2002, the Revenue drafted a schedule of known expenditures and receipts by Mr Haughey over the period 1977 to 1997.

Principal officer with the Revenue, Brian McCabe, told Jacqueline O’Brien SC, for the tribunal, that the Revenue wanted to calculate a figure to assess Mr Haughey’s liability to gift tax.

Accountancy firms ran a bill paying service for Mr Haughey since the 1970s but he also spent money through other channels. The Revenue’s calculations arrived at various figures for total expenditure between 1977 and 1997, from a maximum of £9.9 million to a minimum of £6 million. The Revenue and Mr Haughey’s agents, in negotiations, arrived at a “core” figure of £6.9 million in expenditure and agreed this figure could be viewed as representative of the total gifts received by Mr Haughey over the period. Mr Haughey’s salary from politics over the period was not included in the calculations as Mr Haughey cashed his monthly cheques since the 1970s and did not bank the money.

Mr McCabe said accounts received by the Revenue had indicated that “severance payments” received by Mr Haughey when he retired from politics, were used to buy deer worth £71,000 in 1993. In fact, the Revenue now believed, the money for the deer came from the S9 Ansbacher account.

As part of the 2002 negotiations, Mr Haughey’s agents were asked how he had funded his purchase of a boat and a holiday island in Co Kerry in the late 1970s. They suggested the money could have come from Mr Haughey’s borrowings from AIB.

The agents also said they did not know how Mr Haughey funded his holidays and whether he had received any gifts since 1997. They also did not know how Mr Haughey funded his expenditure during the period 1977 to 1984. The agents also had no information about a sterling £400,000 loan Mr Haughey took out from Guinness Mahon Cayman Trust in the early 1980s.

The Revenue calculated that the total amount received by Mr Haughey in the 20 years from 1977 included £2.12 million from Ben Dunne between 1987 and 1992.

Mr Haughey agreed to pay £3.94 million in settlement and the money was raised by the transfer of lands at Kinsealy, Co Dublin, back to Mr Haughey from his children and its subsequent sale.

Mr McCabe said that from the perspective of the Revenue, the outcome was satisfactory.

Have a think about these figures, and think about how much houses and living cost and during those dates. These were massive sums of money. In 1985 you could buy a large house for £30-£40k. Charles Haughey spent £4.1 million through his bill-paying service in the years 1977 to 1997. And yet we are told nothing was given in return.

The spending through the service for the following years was:

1985 -£189,000

1986 -£176,000

1987 -£203,000

1988 -£232,000

1989 -£325,000

1990 -£264,000

1991 -£342,000

1992 -£336,000

1993 -£302,000

1994 -£316,000

1995 -£441,000

1996 -£274,000

1997 -£118,000

Perhaps most interest, RTE TV news failed to report on the Moriarty Tribunal, it features no where in their archives. It finally was dealt with on Prime Time last night. Watch it here.

The IT front page from Friday:

Former taoiseach Charles Haughey told the Revenue in 2003 that he had not received any gifts of money since 1997 and was living on borrowings from the Irish Nationwide Building Society, it emerged at the Moriarty tribunal yesterday.

It also emerged that in 2002 Mr Haughey’s accountant, Des Peelo, told the Revenue that Mr Haughey was “dying” and wanted to settle his tax affairs.

The tribunal yesterday resumed hearings into the Revenue’s performance in raising tax from Mr Haughey.

Im going to quote a large exerpt here and highlight interesting bits:

The Revenue accepted a payment of £3.94 million (€5 million) from Charles Haughey in 2003 in settlement of an estimated tax bill of £5.5 million (€6.98 million), the Moriarty tribunal heard yesterday.

At the time the settlement was the largest ever made by a taxpayer, but Mr Haughey’s name did not appear in the quarterly list of tax defaulters.

Jacqueline O’Brien SC, for the tribunal, said this was because Mr Haughey’s settlement did not include penalties valued at greater than 15 per cent of the overall settlement. She said the Revenue applied a 100 per cent cap on the amount of interest Mr Haughey paid.

The Revenue has told the tribunal that the application of the cap was the “invariable practice” of the Revenue in Capital Gains Tax and gift tax (CAT) cases.

Ms O’Brien said the tribunal believed there was no obligation on the Revenue to apply the cap.

She said the gifts being taxed dated back to 1977, the “receipt of the gifts was shrouded in secrecy”, and not one gift tax return had been made.

Also, during this period Mr Haughey had the benefit of the gifts received, including the increase in the capital value of his lands at Kinsealy.

Ms O’Brien was reading an opening statement during resumed hearings into the performance of the Revenue in relation to raising taxes from Mr Haughey. An earlier £1 million settlement had been made in relation to payments identified by the McCracken (Dunnes Payments) tribunal.

She said a special Revenue team had been set up to deal with Mr Haughey. In 2001 the team conducted an intensive analysis of the information that was emerging from the tribunal. The first issue to be decided was whether the funds received by Mr Haughey should be subjected to CAT (40 per cent), or income tax. The Revenue decided that CAT was the appropriate tax. It also decided it would seek a negotiated settlement.

Mr Haughey had tax agents Paul Moore and Terry Cooney working for him, as well as accountant Des Peelo and Gore-Grimes solicitors. Mr Haughey’s agents said no tax should be sought until the tribunal had reported but the Revenue did not agree.

The tribunal heard that the Revenue looked at the period 1977 to 1997. It decided that as it did not know all the gifts of money Mr Haughey had received, it would use his estimated expenditure over the period as a “proxy”. It estimated the expenditure over the period at £6.9 million. It did not take Mr Haughey’s income from politics into account (an estimated £600,000) as he cashed his pay cheques and did not bank the money.

Different, higher expenditure estimates led to different higher estimated tax liabilities, but the £6.9 million figure was eventually agreed with Mr Haughey’s agents.

The Revenue noted the possibility that Mr Haughey could be prosecuted for failing to file certain returns. During the negotiations Mr Haughey’s agents said he had been under no obligation to keep books of account as he had not been conducting a trade.

Also, he was in poor health. For these reasons, it was hard to analyse Mr Haughey’s finances over the years. At one stage the agents offered to settle for £2 million. The Revenue estimated that Mr Haughey may have spent £9.9 million over the period in question, making for a potential tax bill of £6.5 million. However it did not think this was achievable. A settlement of between £3.25 million and £3.8 million was more likely, it decided.

On October 8th, 2002, an all-day meeting between the Revenue and Mr Haughey’s advisers took place. It agreed a “core expenditure” figure of £6.9 million. This would lead to a tax bill of £5.5 million, including 100 per cent interest.

After a break for lunch the negotiations resumed and Mr Haughey’s side made a final offer of £3.85 million. This offer was taken back to the board of the Revenue Commissioners. Mr Peelo was subsequently informed that the Revenue would settle for £3.94 million (€5 million) and this was agreed.

A deal was signed in March 2003.

And the question asked on Prime Time was why Haughey was treated with ‘kid gloves’. Why indeed, especially given the sale of lands at Kinsealy. Some of the payments to Haughey included:

A £300,000 “forfeited deposit” on a supposed land deal, from the developer the late Patrick Gallagher (left), in December 1979.

A further £516,000 from donors unknown at around the same time, used to clear Mr Haughey’s debt with AIB.

£170,000 from the hotelier, the late PV Doyle, between 1983 and 1986.

£50,000 from the wealthy Saudi diplomat, the late Mahmoud Fustok, in 1985.

Sterling £282,000 from Ben Dunne (left) in 1987, by way of a cheque made out to a company called Tripleplan.

Lodgments totalling £354,000 made to an NCB investment account from sources unknown.

Payments to Mr Haughey’s bill paying service totalling £100,000 that came from the Fianna Fail party leader’s account in 1986 and 1989.

£180,000 from Ben Dunne in November 1992, the so-called “Carlisle cheques”.

Three “interest free loans” from Dermot Desmond, for sterling £145,000 in total, given in the period September 1994 to September 1997.

Apparently the Revenue felt ‘weak’

The Revenue was “acutely aware” of the weakness of its position when seeking to raise taxes from Charles Haughey, a senior Revenue official said at the Moriarty tribunal yesterday.

Norman Gillanders, assistant secretary at the Revenue Commissioners, told John Coughlan SC, for the tribunal, about seeking to raise taxes from Mr Haughey arising from millions of pounds worth of payments to Mr Haughey identified by the tribunal.

Mr Gillanders said that what might appear to be common sense to the general public might not be the case in tax law. “Different conditions mean different payments are subject to different taxes.”

He said having considered the payments revealed in the tribunal, it was decided, with legal advice, that the payments did not give rise to income tax. Income tax is raised on income that arises from the conduct of a business or a profession, the rendering of a service, or income such as rent.

It was decided to seek to raise gift tax, or Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT), on the money received by Mr Haughey. “If the money given to Mr Haughey was not amenable to gift tax, it would not be amenable to tax at all.” In order for a gift to be amenable to CAT, it must come from a donor who is domiciled in the State or be property that is in the State. The Revenue needs to know who gave the gift and on what date.

“Given the money trails revealed by the tribunal, it was clear enough to me that demonstrating [ the payments eligibility to CAT] would be no easy task,” Mr Gillanders said. He said the Revenue’s prospects of success would be “limited to a minority of the payments revealed by the tribunal” if it had to go to court.

There had earlier been a “dramatic demonstration” of the risks involved when the Appeal Commissioners had ruled for Mr Haughey in relation to CAT on the payments identified by the 1997 McCracken (Dunnes Payments) tribunal.

He said the Revenue drafted a “worst-case scenario” from the point of view of Mr Haughey when going into negotiations, but knew Mr Haughey’s agents would know such a settlement was not achievable. “You have to have a choreography of compromise,” he said. In a “doomsday scenario” where the Revenue had to go to court against Mr Haughey, it was confident it could procure “maybe a little bit more than £2 million”.

O’Connell got the car, and gave it right back, apparently. Keena notes an interesting relationship between Fustok and Haughey. I have highlighted another interesting bit.

A wealthy Arab sent a “top of the range” BMW to former minister Dr John O’Connell, who had sponsored successful Irish passport applications for a number of the man’s associates, it emerged at a hearing of the Moriarty Tribunal in Dublin yesterday.

Dr O’Connell told the tribunal he sent the car back to the late Mahmoud Fustok two days after receiving it in 1980. He said he had only once taken a political donation during his political career. That was £200 he took from businessman Pat Quinn, who was trying to give him £2,000.

He said Mr Fustok was a son-in-law of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the former crown prince. On Christmas Day, 1979, he had met Dr Mahmoud Barbir at a house in Dublin. Dr Barbir was studying medicine in Dublin.

A number of Lebanese Palestinians who had fled Lebanon during the civil war there were living in Dublin and being assisted by Dr Barbir, Dr O’Connell said, and he was asked to help.

In 1980, he sponsored an application for citizenship on residency grounds for four of these people. A form shown to the tribunal showed Dr O’Connell had signed the document stating he had known the men for seven years. He said this had not been the case. He subsequently sponsored a number of other, related applications. All of the people were related to or connected with Mr Fustok.

Dr O’Connell said he approached the then taoiseach, Charles Haughey, about the original four applicants being given citizenship on humanitarian grounds. A letter from Dr O’Connell to Mr Haughey, dated July 1980, stated that Dr O’Connell had “befriended” the four applicants soon after they had arrived in Dublin in the mid-1970s. “That’s not correct. It was 1979,” Dr O’Connell said.

Dr O’Connell said he may have had contact 12 to 16 times with Mr Haughey in relation to the matter.

Dr O’Connell said he first become friendly with Mr Haughey when they had discussed an article by journalist Bruce Arnold which, Dr O’Connell said, Mr Haughey had said “as much as said I had my hands in the till”.

Dr O’Connell said he knew Mr Arnold and he had arranged a lunch attended by him and Mr Haughey. He said his relationship with Mr Haughey was a “peculiar kind of relationship”, adding: “I looked upon him as a friend. He looked upon me maybe as someone who suits his purpose. I don’t know. I did persuade him, finally, that he should retire. I have to say that I succeeded in that respect.”

He said Mr Fustok had suggested to Mr Haughey that crown prince Abdullah should be invited to Ireland. However, Mr Fustok had fallen out with Mr Haughey after he failed to invite him to his talks. During the visit, the crown prince had made representations to Mr Haughey’s secretary about the naturalisation of a Mustapha El-Imad. Mr El-Imad had since died, Dr O’Connell said.

Haughey received £50,000 from Fustok, when O’Connell effectively acted as the ‘bagman’. It is noted that Fustok may have also bought a horse from Haughey, as well as buying shares in another horse because he may have felt ‘he had to’. The obvious question was asked by Counsel for the Tribunal:

Mr Healy asked if it had ever crossed Dr O’Connell’s mind that the payment to Mr Haughey could have been connected with the citizenship applications.

“You could be influenced by reading about the other funds [received by Mr Haughey] but I am not judgmental and you could give him the benefit of the doubt,” Dr O’Connell said. “It did cross my mind.”

What a logical leap it is to suggest that Haughey may have given passports in return for money.

Yet another lapse of memory at the Moriarty Tribunal. There is definately something in the air at Dublin Castle that prompts people to forget important information.

The former chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, Philip Curran, said he had forgotten by the time of the McCracken (Dunnes Payments) tribunal that his predecessor had met Ben Dunne.

However he did not tell the tribunal that his predecessor, Sa©amus Pairca©ir, had also met Mr Dunne.

Mr Curran said he must have seen a Revenue briefing note of March 1988 stating that Mr Dunne had a number of meetings with his predecessor.

“It would not have surprised me because chairmen sometimes meet people.”

By 1997, at the time of the tribunal, the issue did not occur to him, and if it had he would have thought other people had dealt with the matter. He said that when the tribunal had contacted him in 1997, by way of the Revenue, he “felt it was best” to mention his meeting with Mr Dunne. “It didn’t occur to me that I should talk about meetings others had.”

Mr Curran was a commissioner with the Revenue from 1983 and was appointed chairman in 1987. He retired in 1990. He said he was requested to go to Mr Haughey’s office in March 1988 and did so. Mr Haughey told him Mr Dunne wanted a meeting to discuss his tax affairs.

« Older entries § Newer entries »