A financial expert told the High Court today that he would have expected Ms Beverley Cooper-Flynn, in her capacity as a financial advisor with NIB, to have had a "good working knowledge of tax" and to do "nothing that would knowingly prejudice the Revenue".
Continuing his evidence at the Cooper-Flynn libel trial today, Mr Des Peelo also said that investing in the CMI personal portfolio was "clearly an avoidance of DIRT" and amounted to money laundering.
Mr Peelo, who began his evidence to the High Court on Friday last, was a chartered accountant for 30 years, worked in financial journalism, lectured final year chartered accountant students and practiced as an investment adviser during his career.
In his evidence, Mr Peelo demonstrated for the court using comparative charts he had prepared, that a 20 year investment with CMI produced dividends only marginally different to those returned on the same investment in a bank.
He told the court that a return on a CMI investment was essentially "what you put in in the first place".
He added that he had been unable to identify any benefits of the policy and said it was "clearly an avoidance of DIRT".
Mr Peelo also told the court that in his opinion the commission rates being charged by NIB financial advise division were "exceptionally high".
The highest rate he knew of at the time was 3.5% he said. NIB however charged in excess of 4%.
Under cross-examination by Mr Hugh Mohan counsel for Ms Beverley Cooper-Flynn, Mr Peelo disagreed that CMI was a "perfectly legal option for investors."
He said to invest in CMI before 1993 was "clearly an avoidance of tax," as the life assurance contract offered within the policy was not exempt from tax under Irish legislation.
He added, however, that he did not think there was a problem with the policy per se but rather with the way it was applied.
Today is the 21st day of Ms Cooper-Flynn's action alleging libel against RTÉ, journalist Charlie Bird and a retired farmer, Mr James Howard, Wheaton Hall, Drogheda, Co Louth.
She claims she was libeled in broadcasts in June and July 1998, and words used meant she had instigated a scheme intended as a means to evade the lawful payment of tax. The defence denies libel.
The case continues tomorrow.