A developer seeks planning permission for a housing estate, but this is refused. Several days later he contacts the senior figure in local administration in the area, and a few days further on an appeal is filed.
The least you'd imagine the two men would discuss is the failed planning application. Yet Mr George Redmond, who was the official contacted by developer Mr Michael Bailey in this example, can't recall having any such discussions about a specific planning file.
Even though his diary for June 1988 lists the file number for the proposal to build 42 houses in Beverly Court in Rathfarnham, Dublin, Mr Redmond can't remember having any involvement in the case.
In the same period the same developer gave Mr Redmond £20,000 in cash, the former assistant Dublin city and county manager said yesterday. But, true to previous form, he denied having solicited the money and insisted it had nothing to do with any particular issue he discussed with Mr Bailey.
Instead, Mr Redmond hinted that the money was an expression of Mr Bailey's gratitude after the official introduced him to Mr James Gogarty. He "brought them together" on a land deal in Swords, where Mr Gogarty's company was selling a site at Forest Road.
Mr Redmond didn't even bother to count the money he got from Mr Bailey; he simply put it away in a safe place.
As for Mr Bailey, his appeal to An Bord Pleanala was successful in December 1988.
Mr Redmond's admission that he got money from Mr Bailey can be seen as confirmation of yet another of Mr Gogarty's allegations, even if the two men differ on the motive and circumstances of the payment. Mr Gogarty has alleged that Mr Redmond was paid money for providing planning advice on Forest Road.
Meanwhile, developers Michael and Tom Bailey are facing massive tax penalties and the possibility of being debarred as directors as evidence of illegal payments involving their company Bovale Developments mounts up.
At the end of three days of evidence from Tom's wife, Caroline, who kept the books for Bovale, it is clear that more than £500,000 was siphoned out of the company for personal use between 1989 and 1991, and a further £110,000 was removed in 1997. The destruction of the company's financial records in a flooding incident and a fire make it impossible for the tribunal to say whether a similar practice was being carried on in the intervening years.
Based on the experience of other tribunal witnesses who evaded tax, the Baileys are likely to face a tax bill running into several million pounds, money due and penalties, arising out of this week's revelations concerning their accounts. They are currently engaged in a complete review of their accounts for the Revenue.
Tom and Michael Bailey could also be debarred from being directors for a period if the allegations that they deliberately falsified their accounts are sustained.
Bovale's accountant, Mr Joe O'Toole, is also likely to come under intense scrutiny from his own professional body in relation to the shortcomings of the Bovale accounts, which he signed off as accurate and complete.
The money Caroline funnelled into the Bailey personal accounts was massive compared to the modest salaries they were officially drawing. In 1989, for example, £286,000 was paid into Tom's and Caroline's personal account, and £80,000 into Michael's account, when their taxable earnings were a mere £25,382.
To channel this money, special bank accounts were set up in the Bank of Ireland branches in Phibsboro and Swords, without the knowledge of Bovale's bankers or its accountant. The existence of these secret accounts was not disclosed to the tribunal, which, however, managed to trace them.
We've already learned from Caroline Bailey that as far as the 1997 payments were concerned, she hid these by attributing the money to returned house deposits or payments to Dublin County Council. But what Mr Des O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, really wanted to know was what system Caroline was employing to siphon off the £520,000 in secret payments in the 1989-91 period.
She said she couldn't remember, and referred questions to her husband and brother-in-law, as directors of Bovale.
There was also a question of balance; why was Tom, with Caroline, taking the lion's share of the payments, when his elder brother, Michael, was clearly the main force in the company? So, for example, when Caroline Bailey spent £23,000 on a watch in Weir's jewellers in Dublin, was Michael reimbursed for half of this amount?
"I'm not interested. Didn't I get the jewellery?" the witness responded.
On the other hand if, as he had claimed, Michael Bailey paid £162,000 to Mr Gogarty, shouldn't Tom get credited for half of this amount?