MR Charles Haughey accepts that Pounds 1.3 million was, "as a matter of probability". paid into accounts managed on his behalf by the late Mr Des Traynor, the Dunnes payments tribunal was told.
But Mr Haughey's counsel, Mr Eoin McGonigal SC. said that documents to be furnished by his client would show that he was not aware the money had been given by Mr Ben Dunne to Mr Traynor for his benefit.
He said the documents would also make it clear that the former Taoiseach did not personally receive three cheques made out by Mr Dunne to fictitious persons.
Mr McGonigal began yesterday's session of the hearing by applying for full legal representation for Mr Haughey on all the matters relating to him before the tribunal. Mr Haughey had previously sought representation only on the confidentiality of discussions he had with Mr Dunne's solicitor, Mr Noel Smyth.
Mr McGonigal said Mr Haughey intended to furnish documents to the tribunal by next Friday dealing with all the matters before it which concerned his client.
"These documents will acknowledge the evidence that as a matter of probability Pounds 1.3 million was paid to accounts managed by Mr Traynor on behalf of our client, said Mr McGonigal.
"These documents will further make it clear that our client was not aware that Mr Dunne had transferred Pounds 1.3 million to Mr Traynor intended for his benefit. These documents will clarify that it is not the case that our client personally received three cheques made payable to fictitious persons from Mr Dunne."
Mr Haughey would be available to give evidence next week, or whenever required, added Mr McGonigal.
Granting Mr Haughey's application for representation, the chairman of the tribunal, Mr Justice McCracken, said it had been made very clear to Mr Haughey "for some very considerable time" that he was being invited to make the application.
Mr McGonigal said it would become clear that there was no reluctance to accept the invitation. However, the appropriate time was now.
Mr McGonigal then applied to the tribunal for an adjournment of the issue concerning whether Mr Noel Smyth should be directed to divulge details of five meetings he had with Mr Haughey.
Counsel for the tribunal, Mr Denis McCullough SC, had earlier said it was the intention of the tribunal to deal with that issue immediately.
However, Mr McGonigal said he was seeking an adjournment of the matter until next Monday, "the basis being that all matters concerning my client may then be dealt with at the one time".
He said he wished to stress that Mr Haughey would accept any tribunal ruling on the confidentiality issue.
The chairman said Mr McGonigal had previously intimated that this issue should not be determined until all the evidence was heard. "You're now not making that argument?". he asked.
Mr McGonigal said he was not making that argument because he now had all the evidence in statement form and in document form so he had no difficulty with the tribunal choosing the way in which it would deal with the matter. His major concern was that the issues should be dealt with simultaneously.
His final application related to an order the tribunal had made on an affidavit of discovery. This was returnable by yesterday and he asked that that deadline be extended to next Friday so that all the documents could be furnished at the same time.
Replying to the applications, Mr McCullough said the evidence gathered by the tribunal to date was comprehensive but it was not necessarily all the evidence, and he did not wish to be held to the proposition that it was.
"Clearly, the fact that Mr Haughey will now co-operate in this way and make documentation available will be of assistance to the tribunal, not perhaps of as much assistance as it would have been if it had been done some time earlier, but nonetheless it's something the tribunal team welcomes, he said.
In those circumstances he had no objection to the matter being put back for a week so that all matters could be dealt with together, and on the basis that there would be no further adjournment.
The chairman then said he was aware of the volume of documentation which had been sent to Mr Haughey over the past two weeks. "It's been a very large volume, I think some 12 or 14 ring-hinders." He could well understand that, if the decision had just been made to fully take part, Mr Haughey would need time.
"It would also be of great assistance to the tribunal to have a statement and the documents from Mr Haughey. Again it is unfortunate, as Mr McCullough says, that we didn't have them a long time ago when they were asked for, but I don't want to discourage co-operation at this stage," he added.
Granting the adjournment, he said it had to be quite clear that the argument concerning the confidentiality of Mr Haughey's discussions with Mr Smyth would go ahead next Monday.
Mr McCullough said it had been arranged that that matter would be dealt with yesterday and today. There were no further witnesses available until Wednesday, but the tribunal could resume then to deal with the matters referring to Mr Michael Lowry.
The tribunal was adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.