Ahern accused of breaching disclosure order

Taoiseach's evidence:Tribunal lawyers have accused the Taoiseach of a "clear breach" of his obligations to disclose details of Celia Larkin's accounts into which he lodged money.

However, Mr Ahern denied that he was hiding any information and said he didn't believe at the time he was gathering information that he was legally required to furnish information about Ms Larkin's accounts.

He pointed out that he didn't have information about his former partner's accounts at the time.

In addition, he said he told the tribunal about a £50,000 transfer he made to one of her accounts in a letter accompanying his affidavit of discovery.

Des O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, pointed out that the order of discovery issued to Mr Ahern by the tribunal required him to provide information not only about his own accounts but about accounts to which he "caused or procured money to be lodged".

In December 1994, he pointed out, Mr Ahern gave Ms Larkin £28,772 of businessman Michael Wall's money to lodge to her account.

Mr Ahern said this wasn't his money. He had an agreement with Mr Wall to use this money on the refurbishment of a house; the arrangement was made because Mr Wall lived in Manchester and wouldn't be around to withdraw the money.

Mr O'Neill said this lodgement appeared to fall within the order for discovery issued by the tribunal in 2004.

Mr Ahern likened the situation to donations he might receive for Fianna Fáil after fulfilling speaking engagements for the party. Would he be required to declare these? "No, I am not. This was not my money and it was not for my benefit . . . I wasn't hiding anything. I don't believe it falls within the order."

Mr Ahern said he had highlighted issues which then led to the questioning of Ms Larkin and the tribunal getting information about her accounts.

Mr O'Neill said there had been a clear breach of Mr Ahern's obligation to disclose accounts held by Ms Larkin which were under his control. He asked whether Mr Ahern accepted that his obligations extended to Ms Larkin's accounts.

Conor Maguire SC, for Mr Ahern, said this was an impermissible question. Mr O'Neill was trying to get the witness to admit he was in breach of his obligations. If such a legal point was being pursued it should be pursued on a legal basis.

Judge Alan Mahon said there was no allegation of non-compliance. The aim was to establish Mr Ahern's state of mind in relation to his obligations at the time he was filing his affidavit of discovery.

Mr O'Neill pointed out that, separate from the Wall lodgement, Mr Ahern had lodged £50,000 of his own money to Ms Larkin's account in December 1994, which was used for his benefit. "This is an account that falls four-square within your disclosure obligations. Do you agree with that? Yes or no?"

The Taoiseach said he hadn't disclosed the accounts in the order of discovery but had given information about the transfer of money to Ms Larkin's account in the accompanying letter.

Judge Mahon said the witness was entitled to say he didn't understand that the account information had to be included in the affidavit.

"That is my position," Mr Ahern replied.

Mr O'Neill continued to press the Taoiseach on the issue, prompting Mr Ahern to accuse counsel of wanting to speak "endlessly for me to say 'yes' or 'no' ". He had disclosed details of 22 accounts, all he believed he was required to disclose, and had made clear reference to the fact that he transmitted money to Ms Larkin's account.

"That's what I did and I thought I did it right and I would have discussed it with my legal team."

Judge Mahon said it was clear that Ms Larkin's account came under the terms of the order though Mr Ahern didn't see it that way at the time.

"This may well not have been a proper way to have proceeded but it was the way it was done," he said.