"Unacceptable and untrue . . . quite unbelievable . . . equally unbelievable . . . not believable . . . most unlikely . . . incomprehensible . . . the tribunal does not believe . . . factually incorrect . . . quite incredible".In just over four pages dealing with Mr Haughey's evidence, Mr Justice McCracken uses all the above phrases, some of them several times. In short, almost all of the important points made under oath by Mr Haughey about his knowledge of his finances are dismissed as untruths.
His assertion that his financial affairs were managed by the late Mr Des Traynor for more than 30 years without any reference to Mr Haughey is "quite unbelievable", says the report.
Mr Haughey stated under oath to the tribunal that Mr Traynor managed his money without discussing the arrangements with him. He said he had no recollection of ever signing any documents in relation to his financial affairs.
Dismissing this as "quite unbelievable", Mr Justice McCracken states: "There must have been serious financial decisions which had to be made during that period which no financial adviser would take without reference back to his principal."
In particular, Mr Haughey had stated in evidence that there was some "financial stringency" in 1986/87. Referring to the fact that Mr Traynor had been seeking almost £1 million to pay Mr Haughey's debts at that time, Mr Justice McCracken says "It is quite unbelievable that Mr Desmond Traynor would not have told Mr Charles Haughey of the difficulties, and it is equally unbelievable that Mr Charles Haughey would not have asked."
If Mr Haughey really knew nothing of his finances, the report asks, how was he aware, as he told the tribunal in evidence, of a loan he owed to the Agricultural Credit Corporation? Mr Haughey said in evidence that he was anxious to pay it off on becoming Taoiseach as he should not be seen to be indebted to a semi-state bank.
If he knew nothing of the details of his finances, how did he know he was not indebted to any other semi-state body? the report asks.
Mr Haughey's evidence that he did not remember being personally handed three bank drafts worth a total of £210,000 sterling by Mr Dunne was "not believable". First, that event was "quite bizarre" and therefore memorable.
Second, as those drafts found their way into Mr Traynor's hands and into the Ansbacher deposits, Mr Haughey must have given them to him. The report also notes that if Mr Haughey did hand them to Mr Traynor, it is "most unlikely" that Mr Traynor did not reveal he had received other money from Mr Dunne.
Mr Haughey's evidence was that he first learned of the payment of the £1.3 million for his benefit in July 1993. His statement that he did not then discuss it in detail with Mr Traynor and ask him further questions is "incomprehensible".
The tribunal also "does not believe" Mr Haughey's evidence that he did not discuss with Mr Traynor the tax implications of the £1.3 million gift.
"Mr Charles Haughey was a chartered accountant and a former Minister for Finance. He must have been intimately familiar with the provisions of the Capital Acquisitions Tax Act, and been aware that a gift of this nature would give rise to an enormous tax liability.
"The tribunal . . . believes it far more likely that, not only was it discussed, but that it was decided that the money should be kept offshore and that its receipt should never be acknowledged. This would be far more consistent with his [Mr Haughey's] subsequent actions."
Mr Haughey must have known large sums of money were being spent on his behalf, despite his denial of having a lavish lifestyle. He must also have given authority for the money in the Ansbacher deposits to be used to benefit Celtic Helicopters Ltd, although he denied this under oath.
The report also points to an answer given by Mr Haughey to the tribunal which appears to undermine completely his claim that he knew no details of his finances. When asked by Mr Justice McCracken if he discussed with Mr Traynor whether the money received from Mr Dunne had all been spent, Mr Haughey replied: "No. I mean, he would have been supplying the statements of account in that regard".
According to the judge: "The clear implication is that despite his earlier denials, Mr Charles Haughey had in fact received statements dealing with his accounts which he read and noted, and therefore he did not have to ask about his affairs, because he was already aware of them.
"The tribunal believes this to be the true state of affairs."
Finally, the tribunal thinks it "probable" that he was aware at all times that money was being held for his benefit in Ansbacher Cayman Ltd, despite his denials. As for his assertion that he still knows nothing of the Ansbacher accounts, this is "quite incredible".