A review into allegations of wrongdoing at the banking inquiry has found no substance to the claims. The findings of the review of the whistleblower claims were published Friday evening by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission.

The report by senior counsel Senan Allen found the whistleblower is a “wholly unreliable historian”.

The whistleblower, a former investigator at the inquiry, said special treatment was given to certain witnesses at the inquiry and documents were redacted.

Mr Allen found in his report that there is “no substance whatsoever in any of the allegations”.

His review said the claims centre on a misunderstanding of the work of the committee.

It said: “The genesis of the confidential informant’s dissatisfaction appears to have been a failure or an inability to understand the basis upon which the Banking Inquiry was established, and was to be, and was being, conducted.”

In April, the whistleblower made allegations against certain members of the investigations team of the banking inquiry. They claimed that the Central Bank of Ireland and the Department of Finance were given preferential treatment as the investigations team went about its work.

It was also claimed that a number of undocumented meetings took place with the Central Bank and that certain information was allowed to be redacted. Mr Allen was charged with investigating the allegations. He declined to comment when contacted by The Irish Times.

He said no participant attempted to obtain favourable treatment and no investigator sought it.

Mr Allen said: “The confidential informant’s dissatisfaction grew to the point that the confidential informant’s perspective became so distorted that in the mind of the confidential informant there was only one rational point of view: which was that of the confidential informant.

“Any divergence from that point of view was perceived as being so bizarre that it could only be explained by an inference or suspicion of corruption.”

In his findings, Mr Allen said the redaction and withholding of materials and documents was reasonable.

He found what the whistleblower was reporting as facts were at variance with any the written and documented evidence.

Mr Allen’s review read: “The confidential informant did not appear to me to be able to distinguish between fact and proof or between fact and surmise.”

The investigation team were under severe pressure, he said, and this worker refused to recognise their role or to work as part of that team.

The whistleblower alleged many colleagues shared her concerns, but Mr Allen said when interviewed he found they did not share the suspicions or beliefs of the confidential informant.

Mr Allen said the former worker resorted to reciting a litany of their allegations against one employee.

He said: “When pressed that a particular allegation appeared capable of innocent explanation, the response was to refer to all the others, as if a series of events each capable of innocent explanation could together form the basis for allegations of irregularity, criminality and corruption. I could not accept this.”

Legal action

The whistleblower is considering legal action in connection with the findings of the review.

It is understood that the whistleblower, who is a lawyer, considers the report to be defamatory of their professional reputation.

"I am taking appropriate legal advice," the whistleblower said in a hard-hitting statement to The Irish Times.

The whistleblower “categorically” refutes the conclusions of the report and has “grave concerns” about the manner in which the review was conducted.

The whistleblower also takes issue with the language used in the report.

The whistleblower joined the inquiry’s investigation team in January 2015 to support the work of the 11-member committee of TDs and senators.

The whistleblower said they accepted this role for two reasons: the scale of the financial crisis and its long-term impact on the country; and the fact that their experience in the financial services industry would help the inquiry in a “meaningful way”.

“My decision to come forward as a whistleblower was not taken lightly. My reason for doing so is that I had, and continue to have, serious concerns about the manner in which the banking inquiry is being conducted,” the whistleblower said. The whistleblower claims to have been isolated as the single complainant despite alleged evidence that three other investigators had expressed concern about how the inquiry investigation was being conducted.