The Bovale Development chequebook journal for 1996/1997 was used to hide money paid to the directors and members of their families, the Flood tribunal heard yesterday.
Ms Caroline Bailey said five payments totalling almost £90,000 were falsely recorded as paid to Dublin Corporation/ Dublin County Council.
When asked where the money went, she answered: "I presume they went into our farm accounts."
A further £2,000 was shown to have been entered into the chequebook journal under a false name but the cheque stub showed it was paid to Ms Mary Bailey, mother of the directors.
Ms Bailey admitted that a Mary Beare had been entered into the journal as having been refunded £2,000 for a deposit on a house. The name was most likely used because it had the same initials as Ms Mary Bailey, she said.
Ms Bailey said Ms Mary Bailey's name was not used in the affairs of Bovale Development. She said she didn't think Ms Mary Bailey's bank account was used.
Asked why the money was paid to Ms Mary Bailey, she replied: "If they wanted to give money to their parents, that's their prerogative."
Ms Caroline Bailey told the tribunal on Tuesday that the chequebook journal was given to their auditor with incorrect information but an amended and corrected journal had been handed to the tribunal.
Counsel for the tribunal, Mr Desmond O'Neill SC, said yesterday that incorrect information had appeared in the amended journal. "It is obviously not 100 per cent accurate," Ms Bailey said.
Ms Bailey said she went through the journal "line by line" to correct false information. "Were you reviewing the return of deposits or the entire cheque entries?" Mr O'Neill asked. Ms Bailey said she reviewed the entire journal as other categories besides the return of deposits were used as false returns.
Asked about specific names in the journal, Ms Bailey said she was not sure whether they were false. "To prove that I'd need to see the cheques," she said.
Asked how she had determined which names were false when she altered the journal before it was handed into the tribunal, she said this would be done by examining the cheque stub.
Mr O'Neill questioned Ms Bailey as to why she had delayed the tribunal's proceedings for four months by taking an injunction to stop it examining personal accounts in public. "I don't know. I don't understand the legal proceedings and all those things," she said.
"Proceedings were taken in your name but you did not understand?" Mr O'Neill asked. Ms Bailey said it had been on the recommendation of her counsel.
Mr Colm Allen SC, counsel for the Baileys, said Ms Bailey might incriminate herself and should not be expected to answer such questions. Mr Justice Flood, however, ruled that the questions were relevant.