CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS against bankrupt businessman Seán Quinn and members of his family are an “abuse of process” and an attempt by the former Anglo Irish Bank to destroy the Quinns’ credibility ahead of their action against the bank, it has been claimed before the High Court.

Mr Quinn, his son Seán jnr and nephew Peter Darragh Quinn deny they are in contempt of court orders made in June and July 2011 restraining dissipation of assets pending the outcome of proceedings by the bank, now Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC), related to the Quinns’ international property group.

In proceedings against Quinn Investments Sweden and others, the bank claims the Quinns were trying to put properties with a value of up to €500 million beyond its reach. The bank claims it has legitimate charges over those properties, but the family disputes that.

In separate proceedings, Patricia Quinn and her five children are seeking to avoid liability for loans of up to €2.8 billion advanced by the bank on grounds including that they were made for the unlawful purpose of propping up the bank’s share price.

Yesterday was the second day of the hearing before Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne of the application by IBRC for orders for attachment and committal of the three respondents for alleged contempt of the June order.

Paul Gallagher SC, with Shane Murphy SC, for IBRC, read from documents, correspondence and affidavits from both sides addressing claims the three were involved in a strategy to strip the Quinn companies of assets.

IBRC contends Seán Quinn snr and Peter Darragh Quinn were the “prime movers” in the strategy which, it alleges, involved contrived arbitration awards, self-bankruptcies, disposal of valuable assets at an undervalue and various overpayments to various parties, including an alleged $1.1 million payment to lawyers in Ukraine.

The bank also claims that Aoife Quinn had no capacity to withdraw a valuable shareholding of a Cyprus company, Carcer Management Ltd, on June 20th, 2011.

Solicitors for the Quinns said there was no breach of the court order and that the bank was seeking to retrospectively apply that order.

The respondents, among various matters, said the self-insolvency of two Russian companies, Finanstroy and Logistica, were done in advance of the June order. A signature of Peter Quinn on an assignment of property was not his signature, they also claim. Peter Quinn said he was unaware of that and other disputed assignments.

The defendants deny any involvement in disputed payments to the general director of Quinn Properties Ukraine and say they were very concerned to learn from the bank about that payment. They have alleged locals had sought to exploit the differences between the bank and the Quinns in various countries.

They also claimed many of the issues being raised by the bank are an effort to devise a contrived claim against them. In correspondence with the bank, their solicitors said the contempt proceedings were an abuse of process and an attempt to embarrass their clients which they would resist in “the strongest possible terms”.

Their solicitors also argued the Quinns had offered to assist the bank in its efforts to protect the international assets but the bank had not responded to their offer. IBRC contends the Quinn side has “mischaracterised” that offer.

The Quinns also claim they have not been involved in the various companies since August 2011 when they were removed at the instigation of the bank.