Auctioneer claims tribunal out to get him by any means

Lawyers for the auctioneer, Mr John Finnegan, have claimed the tribunal is out to "get" their client "by hook or by crook" by accusing him of bribery, conflict of interest and making secret payments.

In a strongly-worded attack on the procedures of the tribunal, they said Mr Finnegan was "a marked man" who had been given no advance warning of the allegations he was now facing. The tribunal's legal team rejected these arguments, saying the only reason Mr Finnegan was being questioned about offshore payments was because he had told the tribunal nothing about the money he earned offshore from a series of land deals with builders Brennan and McGowan.

No evidence was taken yesterday from the builder Mr Joe McGowan as a result of the legal wrangling. Further submissions are to be made to the chairman, Mr Justice Flood, today.

Yesterday, Mr Dominick Hussey SC, for the auctioneer, demanded a copy of the evidence against his client, the right to cross-examine his accusers and give rebutting evidence. This followed remarks made on Tuesday by Ms Patricia Dillon SC, for the tribunal, who said Brennan and McGowan had paid a £100,000 "bribe" to Mr Finnegan. In return the auctioneer "delivered" a property in Monkstown for the builders to buy, she suggested. Ms Dillon described the transaction, in which Mr Finnegan acted as selling agent for the nuns selling the property, as "a dirty little deal".

It emerged yesterday that the solicitor acting for the nuns was unaware of Mr Finnegan's involvement with the two builders. Mr McGowan has given evidence that his arrangement with the auctioneer pre-dated the Monkstown transaction.

The tribunal is examining six land transactions in Dublin in which Brennan and McGowan and Mr Finnegan operated in partnership. In each case, the three men shared substantial proceeds from the deals in offshore bank accounts. In four of the transactions, Mr Finnegan received his one-third share even though he had no investment or beneficial interest. The tribunal's interest stems from a payment of £60,000 made to Canio, a company owned by the former minister Mr Ray Burke, from the proceeds of the last deal.

Mr Hussey SC, claimed the tribunal was out to get his client. "They know they're not going to get him on the payment to Ray Burke out of Canio money but they'll get him one way or another."

He said it was clear his client would face allegations of bribery, conflict of interest and making secret payments when he entered the witness box shortly. Up to now, he had been assured by the tribunal that no such allegations would be made.

Responding to Mr Hussey's arguments, Ms Dillon said she rejected "absolutely and utterly" the claim that the tribunal was out to "get" Mr Finnegan.

Ms Dillon said the tribunal "knew nothing" about the money paid to the three men in Jersey arising out of the six transactions. The tribunal was not able to exclude Mr Finnegan's offshore finances because the auctioneer had elected not to provide information about them, other than making "bald statements" through his lawyer.

She said it was clear the land transactions were connected to the money paid to Canio, which came out of the last of the six transactions.