A report from a banking expert for Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has stated that records do not substantiate suggestions that a lodgement of IR£28,772.90 was in fact $45,000, the Mahon tribunal heard yesterday.
On Mr Ahern's last day of evidence to the planning tribunal, counsel for the tribunal Des O'Neill SC read into the record a report provided by Paddy Stronge, former chief officer of Bank of Ireland Corporate Bank, on behalf of Mr Ahern.
The report looked at two of the five transactions examined by the tribunal in the last two weeks: a lodgement of IR£24,838.49 made on October 11th, 1994, to the account of the Taoiseach's former partner, Celia Larkin; and a lodgement of £28,772.90 made on December 5th, 1994, to Mr Ahern's account.
Mr Ahern had said that the first transaction was made up of IR£16,500 and circa £8,000stg, made up of goodwill loans from friends and donations from a Manchester dinner. He said the second amount was circa £30,000stg belonging to businessman Michael Wall.
The tribunal had suggested the first could have been £25,000 sterling and the second could have been $45,000.
Mr Stronge said he had reviewed accounts and procedures at AIB, 38 O'Connell Street, where Mr Ahern did his banking, and concluded that in both cases the "co-incidence" of a round sum arising in the tribunal's calculations depended on a breach of branch procedures. He said he had been unable to find any evidence of breaches.
"I have been unable to find any evidence which would cause me to suspect that any breach of branch procedure occurred leading to an inappropriate rate of exchange being used," he said.
He said that having reviewed the banking documentation, he was of the opinion that "the evidence does not substantiate a lodgement of $45,000 to Ms Larkin's account".
"The available evidence, including the documentation, is consistent with the composition of the lodgement being largely made up of sterling, with some additional Irish pounds," he said.
There were no figures provided in Mr Stronge's report to explain his conclusions.
Mr O'Neill emphasised that Mr Stronge was expressing his opinion and this would be adjudicated on by the tribunal.
In earlier evidence yesterday, Mr O'Neill took the tribunal through the calculations which suggested that the Michael Wall lodgement was actually $45,000.
He challenged Mr Ahern's assertion, in his opening statement to the tribunal two weeks ago, that to come up with a calculation of $45,000, a "notional exchange rate" would have to be applied.
He said that the rate applied to come up with $45,000 was an "actual exchange rate" on the day, though it was the rate to be applied to sums of up to £2,500. He explained that if the teller was asked to exchange a sum of over £2,500 he would be required to contact currency services to be given the correct rate of exchange for the sum.
"If the teller did make that phone call and was told to apply a higher of the two rates for US currency purchases that day, that would have involved . . . the rate applicable to US dollar transactions up to a value of £2,500," Mr O'Neill said.
He said it was a matter for the currency services to determine whether they should allow a transaction to take place at a rate higher than the published rate of the day or whether the higher rate should be applied.
"It was open to them to do so, and had they done so they would be doing no wrong, isn't that correct?" he asked Mr Ahern.
Mr Ahern nodded.
Mr O'Neill also pointed out that on the day in question the bank documentation only showed sterling transactions of £1,921.55.
"It follows that if that is accurate, it cannot be the case that Ms Larkin changed a sterling equivalent of IR£28,772.90 on that day, isn't that right?" he asked.
"If the bank record is accurate," Mr Ahern replied.
AIB's remit records of the time, which show how much foreign currency was sent to currency services at the time of the transaction, were found to be inconclusive.
