CLARE Fianna Fail councillor, Mr Enda Mulkere, told the Shannon Development fraud trial yesterday he was "flabbergasted" to learn that two invoices for the same amount for two sets of work that were never done were found in his files.
Prosecuting counsel, Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, asked him did he not find it strange that the £16,182 amount on an invoice relating to Smithstown Industrial Estate matched exactly the £16,182 payment made to a contractor for work at Traderree that company said it had not done.
Mr Mulkere said it might seem strange but he had nothing to do with it. His filing cabinet was open always and anyone could have put them there.
He said it was "ridiculous" for counsel to suggest the reason was he had to use the Traderree idea to find that sum of money when SFADCo decided not to proceed with projected work at Smithstown.
Earlier in his direct evidence, Mr Mulkere told his counsel, Mr Peter Charleton SC, that he believed the payment made to McCarthy Bros and Co (Ennis) Ltd on a certificate related to the Traderree contract, was done by mistake. He was not aware it had been paid until June 16th, 1992.
"I had clearly advised Gerry Gardiner that on no circumstances was this to be paid", said Mr Mulkere.
Judge Kevin Haugh agreed with an objection at this point by Mr O'Higgins (with Mr Paul McDermott) that this claim had not been put to Mr Gardiner, a Shannon Development official, when he was in the witness box.
The jury has been told in evidence by Mr Gardiner that one of his functions was to clear invoices for payment if they matched consultants certificates and if the relevant SFADCo executive agreed the work was satisfactory.
Asked how his signature appeared on the certificate, Mr Mulkere said he believed it was put there by the consulting engineer for the Traderree Court project, Mr Patrick Coleman.
Mr Mulkere denied he had any connection with correcting fluid marks on the certificate.
"I know nothing about that and had absolutely nothing to do with it. I didn't interfere with the certificate in any way," he told the jury.
Mr Mulkere (48), married and the father of four children, of Carrownaeloughy, Crusheen, Co Clare, was giving evidence at the start of the defence case on the eighth day of his trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.
He denies 16 charges alleging he committed fraud by false pretences on dates from October 1991 to June 1992, while he was an executive at SFADCo.
Mr Mulkere said he gave the Traderee certificate "untouched" to Mr Gardiner. When he learned his name was on it he said he told Mr Coleman he wasn't going "to take the rap" for the difficulty SFADCo had with certain flats at Traderree. He had not been involved in the project.
He said Mr Coleman agreed he would reissue the certificate and that probably accounted for a second copy of it produced in evidence.
Asked about two letters, dated December 10th and 11th, 1991, from Mr Coleman giving a breakdown of the items in the Traderree certificate, Mr Mulkere said he had never seen the second one previously. He recalled the first one coming with the certificate and that was when he telephoned Mr Coleman to complain about his name being linked to the project.
In further reply to Mr Charleton, the accused denied the claim by Mr Coleman in evidence that he put him under pressure to include the sum for "extra works" at Traderree in the certificate. The accused said it was Mr Coleman who identified the works.
Mr Mulkere said he got to know Mr Thomas Madden personally through his supervision for SFADCo for contracts Maddens were involved in.
He told Mr Madden around October 1991 of his financial problems and asked him for a £20,900 loan. Mr Madden refused to give him that much but said he could handle smaller amounts. The account given by Mr Madden of their dealings was not correct. There was never any mention of sub contractors.
Mr Mulkere was taken by Mr Charleton through the list of cheques he received and said that in each case he told Mr Madden in advance what amounts he required to satisfy the institutions he owned money to or to pay for cattle, a tractor and a foal. He gave Mr Madden lists with figures on them and Mr Madden made out cheques for him, said the accused.
Asked why Mr Madden would make all the cheques, totalling almost £57,000, payable to cash, Mr Mulkere said he believed it was because Mr Madden did not wish to identify himself or his company with the transactions.
He did not tell Mr Madden the cheques on the lists were required to pay sub contractors and it also was not true as claimed in evidence by Mr Madden that he had promised him he would be repaid on certificates through the Eurotechnopole and Cabletron contracts. These were personal loans he was going to repay himself by the end of 1992, said Mr Mulkere.
Mr Mulkere denied that a sum of £17,300 included in a certificate for over £303,000 for Maddens in December 1991 was part repayment of what he claimed were the first personal loans received in November from Mr Madden.
Replying to Judge Haugh, who asked could he explain how Maddens was paid "on the double" early in 1992 for these extra jobs which it invoiced SFADCo directly for, Mr Mulkere said he was not aware until months later they had been paid for on a one to one basis.
The hearing continues.