The auctioneer Mr John Finnegan has denied that the offshore payments he received from builders Brennan and McGowan were gifts or bonuses.
Mr Finnegan said the payments were returns on "investments" he made in six land transactions in which he was involved with the two builders. The payments resulted from what he described as an "around the houses" scheme based on the anticipated future profits on the lands. But he was not sure of the "exact workings" of the scheme and did not know how his share was calculated.
However, Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, said the return Mr Finnegan received on his "investment" was extraordinary and implausible. The only explanation was that it contained "a substantial amount of bonus or gift".
"No, sir," the witness replied. "I was asked to participate in a scheme. There was no question of this being a bonus." He rejected another suggestion by counsel that he was paid the money for "delivering" the land to Brennan and McGowan.
The reason the tribunal is investigating these land transactions is that a payment of £60,000 was made to Mr Ray Burke from the proceeds of one of the deals. Brennan and McGowan say Mr Finnegan did not invest money in the ventures but Mr Finnegan has since produced bank documents which he says show he did put money in.
Mr Hanratty pointed out that in the case of one of the transactions, involving land at Monkstown, Mr Finnegan's evidence was that he invested £33,000. One month later, he was paid over £100,000 to an offshore account in Jersey. That represented an interest rate of 2,400 per cent, counsel said.
In another transaction, involving land at Donnybrook, Mr Finnegan had claimed he invested £50,000. Two months later, he was paid over £100,000 offshore. Mr Hanratty pointed out this represented an interest rate of 600 per cent per annum. He asked the witness if he knew of any investment scheme that paid an interest rate of 600 per cent per annum. Mr Finnegan said he did. It might have been important to have him involved as an investor in order to make the scheme work, he said.
According to Mr Hanratty, it was clear that whatever these payments were, they did not represent a return on investment.
He said the assertion by the witness that he was paid a share of the anticipated profits was not consistent with the facts. Mr Finnegan did not ultimately get one-third of the profits, and he had no involvement in the lands apart from the payment he received.
Mr Finnegan said they were going "round and round" at this stage. "Well, we'll go round and round until we get some sense from this," counsel replied.
Earlier, Mr Finnegan said that paying attention to complex financial matters was not his "forte". Recently, for example, he had debited his bank accounts for about £1,000, but had not noticed when the bank mistakenly entered a sum 50 times greater.
