A HIGH Court judge has asked the DPP to examine forged signatures on ACCBank loan papers as well as a “fictitious” P60 in the bank’s files certifying a much higher pay rate for a retired garda in a case where the bank yesterday secured judgment for €3.27 million.
Two bank officials have left ACC since the forged signatures and other matters were raised by the bank’s internal audit, Mr Justice Peter Kelly noted yesterday.
Given the “disturbing evidence”, he was referring the papers in the case to the DPP. The bank had told the judge a handwriting expert had concluded signatures on a loan document were not those of the four defendants.
ACC had brought proceedings against George and Evelyn Fahey, Rakerin, Gort, Co Galway, and George and Catherine McGrath, Srah Cross, Loughrea, Co Galway, arising from a loan of €3.2 million made in 2006.
Mr McGrath, a retired garda, has extensive property interests and he and Mr Fahey were assessed by ACC in January 2008 as having a net worth of some €25.86 million.
Mr Justice Kelly said the bank initially sought judgment, plus interest and costs, for €4.5 million against the four but had in court reduced that claim to €3.27 million. As the defendants accepted they got the money, the bank was entitled to judgment in that smaller sum. ACC was quite right to reduce its claim but its reasons why raised “a number of troubling issues”, he said.
A letter of sanction for a bridging loan to buy a property in Loughrea, Co Galway, issued in May 2006, had a wrong address for the property and erroneously stated it had planning permission. That letter was signed by Aidan Corcoran, a relationship manager, and Pat O’Callaghan, a senior manager, at ACC’s Galway financial services centre.
The defendants signed a form of acceptance. However, Mr McGrath and a solicitor acting for ACC spotted the errors and suggested the bank correct them.
The bank issued a fresh letter of sanction dated June 7th, 2006. That letter was purportedly signed by the defendants and witnessed by Aidan Corcoran. All four defendants had sworn they had not signed the June 7th, 2006, letter or seen it until the legal action after their failure to pay interest on the loan.
Mr Corcoran had said “a copy of the June 2006 letter” was furnished to them but he could not recall the circumstances. He said he recalled receiving the signed letter and would have added his own signature. The June 2006 letter referred to him witnessing the signatures “which was not the case”, he said.
ACC’s counsel had accepted Mr Corcoran’s affidavit was “unsatisfactory” from ACC’s viewpoint.
The judge said other matters of concern arose. One involved an alleged meeting between Mr McGrath and Mr Corcoran of November 3rd, 2008, ahead of a meeting with ACC when it was claimed Mr Corcoran told Mr McGrath, if asked about his wages, to indicate they were higher than they actually were.
Mr McGrath said bank officials would look for P60s and Mr Corcoran allegedly said that was “covered”. He had P60s and an accountant friend owed him a favour, the judge said.
While a 2005 P60 for Mr McGrath correctly showed earnings of €24,951, data provided by ACC showed ACC held a purported P60 for 2005 falsely certifying his earnings at €89,952.
Mr McGrath had sworn he had no part in creating or procuring that document.
The case was adjourned to next week to allow the defendants consider whether to seek a stay on judgment.
