Lawyers for former senator, Mr Liam Cosgrave,ave accused Mr Frank Dunlop of telling lies on behalf of other people who have made huge gains out of planning.
Mr Dunlop's evidence was motivated by a desire to "give the appearance of co-operation," according to Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, for Mr Cosgrave. His approach also involved "dumping" on councillors and getting rid of money that would otherwise be linked to him.
Mr Dunlop denied the assertion. "A large part of my time here is due to your cross-examination," he said.
"It's a better place than Mountjoy," Mr O'Higgins retorted.
Mr Justice Flood intervened: "That's an uncalled-for remark and should be withdrawn."
Mr O'Higgins withdrew the remark. He then accused him of providing detailed responses in some instances and then "going fuzzy" when it suited him.
Counsel: "You're attempting to be a superb actor."
Mr Dunlop: "The only actor in this room, Mr O'Higgins, is you."
Counsel: "I'm not the one who spent many years corrupting councillors."
Mr O'Higgins, who completed his cross-examination of the witness yesterday, said Mr Dunlop's tax affairs were dependent on his "holding the line" at the tribunal. Any income that was adjudged to be his could cause him enormous problems.
Mr Dunlop said he was currently under investigation and he "awaited judgment".
Mr O'Higgins took the example of a £100,000 sum that Mr Dunlop had failed to declare to the Revenue. If it was decided this was a deliberate act and not just an omission, he could face a bill of £420,000 on this sum, including penalties and interest.
"You had a lot of money to get rid of, because you're liable to a bill of €4.2 for every euro found to be your own." Mr Dunlop said this was probable but he didn't accept the premise being made.
But Mr O'Higgins said the witness had a "huge incentive" to "depress" the amount of money he got in and exaggerate the payments that went out.
In addition to the tax bill, Mr Dunlop was facing the threat of criminal charges for corruption, telling lies under oath, obstructing the tribunal, getting money from directors under false pretences and converting VAT payments for his own use, he said. In addition, "you score zero on mitigation and 10 on aggravation. The only thing you can put in your direction is your alleged co-operation here".
Mr O'Higgins said his client got £2,000 from Mr Dunlop in Buswell's Hotel in December 1992. Mr Dunlop said he paid Mr Cosgrave £5,000 at a removal on Newtownpark Avenue, Blackrock, in 1992 and £5,000 in Buswell's in 1997.
But Mr O'Higgins said the modus operandi of the witness was to mix truth with lies; the meeting in Buswell's took place in 1992, not in 1997.
He said Mr Cosgrave would give evidence that he did not attend any removal in Blackrock. He did not know Dr Des Dillon, a local resident whose removal took place from the church on Newtownpark Avenue on the day of the alleged meeting.
