The former Taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, lied and lied again to the tribunal set up to investigate payments to politicians, the tribunal was told yesterday. Mr Denis McCullough SC, said the payments of
£1.3 million to Mr Haughey were paid in a "clandestine way"
and in a manner which was designed so that they would not be found or uncovered.
Earlier, counsel for Mr Haughey, Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, declined an invitation by Mr Justice McCracken to make a submission. He said Mr
Haughey had given his personal statement and "I don't think there is anything to be said".
Mr McCullough said the issue for the tribunal to consider was to what extent the former Taoiseach had knowledge of the source of the payments and whether his responses to the tribunal on the matter could have been considered "credible".
Mr Haughey's claim that he did not enjoy a lavish lifestyle was
"at the very least, disingenuous", he said. Mr Haughey spent £
710,000 from 1988 to 1991 "maintaining his lifestyle" over and above his salary as Taoiseach and TD.
"It could hardly be the lifestyle of your average North County
Dubliner," he said adding that only someone who enjoyed such a lifestyle could seriously contend that expenditure of that level was not lavish.
Mr Haughey, he pointed out, claimed to have no knowledge of his financial affairs. According to his own evidence he asked no questions and was given no information about the source of the money.
Mr Haughey's position seemed to be "as long as he did not know the source of the funds all was well and there was no need to concern himself with the matter", Mr McCullough said.
Mr Haughey had claimed that he believed there may have been borrowings but Mr McCullough said it was clear Mr Traynor had no power of attorney, that Mr Haughey never signed any documents relating to loans and that his property was not mortgaged.
"It seems difficult to accept that Mr Haughey believed at any time that this income was being maintained and was being provided out of borrowings. But in any event as long as the money kept coming in Mr
Haughey asked no questions.
"It seems to me inconceivable that Mr Haughey could not not have known the source of the monies or could have failed to make inquiries about the source of the monies," he said.
Mr McCullough said that the tribunal knew as fact that while Mr
Haughey was Taoiseach he received £210,000 sterling from Mr
Ben Dunne in the form of three cheques which had been made out to fictitious names.
Mr Haughey also admitted that he knew of the ACC loan and asked the late Mr Des Traynor to deal with it because he felt it was inappropriate to have a loan with a state bank.
"Mr Haughey appeared to accept that it would be at least
`inappropriate', to use his term, for him as Taoiseach to have accepted substantial sums of money from a business man unrelated to him but he did in fact do this in November 1991 so therefore his protestations that he had no knowledge of the source of the money ring somewhat hollow," counsel for the tribunal said.
Mr Haughey, he said, "failed entirely to co-operate with the tribunal and more than that, unfortunately it has to be said that Mr
Haughey lied to the tribunal".
"He lied to the tribunal in his letter on March 7th, 1997 when he denied having ever received monies at all from Mr Dunne. He lied again to the tribunal through the statement made on his behalf on
June 30th, 1997 when he said as a matter of probability, which must indeed be weasel words if ever there were words of that kind, he had received the benefit of these monies but he did not know the source of them."
He lied again in his statement of July 7th, Mr McCullough said, adding that throughout the lengthy correspondence the tribunal had with Mr Haughey he "failed to reveal the truth".
Mr Haughey had, he said, allowed counsel for the tribunal to travel to the Cayman Islands with all the expense and time involved,
"knowing full well that he was in possession of all the information the tribunal sought".
Although Mr McCullough agreed there was no evidence to show that the former Taoiseach did favours for Mr Dunne or Dunnes Stores, Mr
McCullough said that for Mr Haughey to accept a payment of £
1.3 million or £210,000 sterling from any businessman unrelated to him "could not be justified on any basis". Even if no political favours were given, he added, "the mere acceptance of such a gift compromises the recipient".