A court-appointed inspector is seeking information from Google and the Revenue Commissioners that he says will assist in his investigation into the affairs of a Christmas tree planting company.
The court heard inspector Declan de Lacy’s attempts to retrieve this information directly from WFS Forestry Ireland Limited have been unsuccessful.
Last July, Mr Justice Michael Quinn appointed Mr de Lacy, of PKF O’Connor, Leddy & Holmes, to investigate the company’s affairs on the basis of “prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, unlawfulness or other irregularity”.
WFS Forestry, which has registered offices in the Fitzwilliam Business Centre, 26/27 Pembroke Street, Dublin 2, and its company director and controlling shareholder Craig Hands strongly deny the allegations raised by a number of investors who brought the application seeking the appointment of the inspector.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Carl and Gerty Cori: a Nobel Prizewinning husband and wife team
The inspector’s appointment came on foot of the first recorded application from creditors, rather than the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement or the Minister for Justice, under section 747 of the Companies Act of 2014.
Investor John Kearney, of Ballyroe, Tralee, Co Kerry, and 17 other alleged investors supporting his application, claimed investments they made in WFS Forestry, structured variously as loans and other advances, were not repaid when due.
Revenue was neutral on the application against it and will comply with any order made, its counsel Kieran Binchy told the court on Friday. He said Revenue required the court’s approval before releasing confidential taxpayer information it holds.
It is “extremely rare” for Revenue to release taxpayer information, which is a criminal offence except in specific circumstances provided for in the Companies Act, he said.
From Google, the inspector wants information including emails from the WFS company addresses.
Google’s senior counsel, Margaret Gray, asked for time so representatives of the technology company could meet Mr de Lacy in early January to narrow their differences on the scope of the “broad” information request.
She cited data protection concerns as a potential barrier to releasing some of the information sought. While the request to Google Ireland Limited and Google Cloud EMEA Limited is for data relating to WFS Forestry, she said, there could be other personal data in the mix.
The court heard Google is considering whether the relevant part of the Companies Act is compatible with European data protection laws.
Barrister Brian Conroy, for Mr de Lacy, said his applications were being made in circumstances where attempts to obtain the information from WFS Forestry directly were unsuccessful.
There is a concern, he said, that the company was not willing to engage.
Sections 754 and 757 of the Companies Act provide allowances for Revenue to disclose the taxpayer information sought, he added.
In an affidavit, Mr de Lacy said 66 individuals allegedly made investments totalling some €4.3 million in purported Christmas tree plantations and other ventures through WFS Forestry and its associated firms.
Having heard submissions from the parties, Mr Justice Quinn decided WFS should be notified and given an opportunity to make submissions prior to him making the disclosure orders.
In separate applications brought by the inspector, the judge was satisfied he could make an order requiring Mr Hands to hand over all books and records relating to WFS Forestry. He must also answer a list of questions and to meet the inspector for questioning under oath before the end of January, the judge ruled.
The inspector was also permitted to follow an alleged money trail from WFS Forestry to an associated firm, WFS Ireland Property Services Limited. Mr Conroy said “large sums” were transferred from WFS Forestry to WFS Ireland Property Services without any clear explanation.
The judge also made an order for the delivery of Mr de Lacy’s interim report on his investigation into the company. Although at least two alleged investors sought copies, Mr Justice Quinn ruled that the interim report, which made no findings, should be restricted to the Minister for Justice and the Corporate Enforcement Authority.
Mr Justice Quinn noted there had been significant discussion, prior to the inspector’s appointment, about whether it would be more appropriate for the creditors to petition for WFS’s liquidation, instead of the court appointing an inspector whose investigation is funded by the taxpayer through the Department of Justice.
He said all of the inspector’s endeavours to date have been appropriate, but he urged continued consideration of the proportionality of each investigative action, given the taxpayer’s role.
Mr de Lacy is tasked with investigating, among other things, whether the affairs of the company have been conducted with the intent to defraud creditors or with a fraudulent or unlawful purpose.
The case will return to court in mid-January.
