Money motivated Maloney allegations, O'Brien claims

The former chief executive of Esat Digifone was trying to force the flotation of the company when he made allegations of payments byMr Denis O’Brien, it was claimed at the Moriarty tribunal this afternoon.

Mr O’Brien saidthat Mr Barry Maloney held a two per cent share in Esat Digifone when he made the allegation.

He was motivated by profit, wanting to "derail" the flotation of Esat Telecom in 1997 to force thesale of Esat Digifone, Mr O’Brien claimed.

Mr Maloney had claimed Mr O’Brien told him he [O'Brien] had made two payments of £100,000 to an unspecified person in 1996. He assumed this person was Mr Lowry.

Mr Maloney claimed a "third party" knew of Mr O'Brien's intentions to make payments to Mr Michael Lowry. This would seriously damage Esat Telecom, he claimed.

The contents of an undated note, said to have been written by Mr Maloney after a meeting he had with Mr O’Brien in 1997, were read out by Mr John Coughlan SC for the tribunal.

In the memo, Mr Maloney wrote that Mr O’Brien said money intended for Mr Lowry had got stuck with a "middleman".

"I couldn’t have said that, because there was never any middleman," said Mr O’Brien.

He also denied telling Mr Maloney that the board of Esat Digifone were looking into floating the company.

"I couldn’t have said these things," he insisted. He said that as Esat Telecom was being floated, there was no possibility that another flotation was even being considered.

He also told the tribunal that an apology by Mr O'Brien made to Mr Maloney over the suggestion of the two £100,000 payments was not an admission of guilt.

This was intended as a platitude to calm Mr Maloney down and diminish the fuss over the incident, rather than a sincerely meant apology, he said.

Mr O’Brien raised strong objections with Mr Justice Moriarty about this note and other pieces of evidence, describing one anonymous note as "fairyland stuff".

The note had been produced by Mr Maloney last night,the tribunal heard. Mr Maloney said he had "mislaid" them.

Mr O'Brien, and his lawyer, Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, questioned the validity of such items of evidence, saying they may have been submitted merely as rebuttals to evidence he had already given .

JusticeMoriarty agreed it was unfair Mr O'Brien had been 'hit' with this evidence at such short notice, and said he would endeavour to ensure it didn't happen again.