Ansbacher Cayman Report Appendix Volume 3

8/14/2019 Ansbacher Cayman Report Appendix Volume 3

1/694

Record Number: 1999 /163 Cos

T H E H I G H C O U R TI N T H E M A T T E R O F T HE C OM PA NIE S A CT S 1 963 to 19 90

AND IN THE MATTER OF PAR T I I OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1990 AND SECTIONS 8 AND 17A N D I N T H E M A T T E R O F A N S B A C H E R ( C A Y M A N ) L I M I T E D

(formerly G U I N N E S S M A H O N C A Y M A N T R U S T L I M I T E D ,A N S B A C H E R L I M I T E D an d C A Y M A N I N T E R N A T I O N A L B A N K A N D T R U S T C O M P A N Y

L I M I T E D )

R E P O R T O F T H E I N S P E C T O R SA P P O I N T E D T O E N Q U I R E IN T O T H E

A F F A I R S OF A N S B A C H E R ( C A Y M A N )L I M I T E D

Published by Order of the Court made on 24 June 2002

V O L U M E [3] : A P P E N D I X X V ( 1 ) TO X V ( 1 6 )


2/694

ISBN 0-7557-1355-9

Govern ment of I reland 2002


3/694

Appendix XV (1) Mr Roger P Ballagh1. Evidence relied upon by the Inspectors in arriving at the conclusion relating to MrRoger P Ballagh.

a) Transcript of evidence of Mr Michael O ' Shea dated 19 June 2001.b) Statement of Michael O' Shea.c) Letter of 16 March 2001 - Michael O'Shea to the Inspectors.d) Internal Guinness and Mahon memo - JDT to P O'D of 5 September1984.e) Letter of 2 May 1985 - DJ Barry to the Greffer' s Office, Guernsey.f) Letter of 18 May 1992 - Joan Williams to Ronan Redm ond, IIB.g) Statements of Account A/A54.h) Foreign Dealing tickets - Hamilton Ross.

2. Correspondence received from or on behalf of Mr Roger Ballagh.a) Letter of 14 December 2001 - Mason Hayes & Curran to the Inspectors.b) Letter of 15 January 2002 - Mason Hayes & Curran to the Inspectors.


4/694

Appendix XV ( 1)( 1) (a)


5/694

PRIVATE EXAMINATION OF MR. MICHAEL O'SHEA

UNDER OATH

ON TUESDAY, 19TH JUNE 2001

I hereby certify thefollowing to be a true andaccurate transcript of myshorthand notes in theabove named interview.

Stenographer


6/694

PRESENT

The Inspectors:

Solicitor to the Inspectors:

Interviewee:

Represented by:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE 0'LEARYMS. MACKEY BL

MS. M. CUMMINS

MR. MICHAEL O'SHEA

MR. KEVIN BARRYMcGONAGLE KENNEDY BALLAGH


7/694

WITNESS

I N D E X

EXAMINATION

MR. M. 0'SHEA JUDGE 0'LEARY


8/694

1 THE EXAMINATION COMMENCED, AS FOLLOWS, ON TUESDAY,2 19TH JUNE 2001:345 JUDGE 0'LEARY: I note your statement6 with regard to the7 voluntariness of your attendance and that is8 accepted, Exhibit 1.9 MR. 0'SHEA: That is accepted.

10 JUDGE 0'LEARY: By the Inspectors.11 MR. O'SHEA: Thank you. Thanks.12 JUDGE O'LEARY: Yes. That is a fairly13 standard procedure14 nowadays I think.15 MR. O'SHEA: It is16 JUDGE O'LEARY: It is indeed.17 MR. O'SHEA: It is, yes.18 JUDGE O'LEARY: Thank you very much indeed19 for attending, Mr. O'Shea.

20 My name is Sean O'Leary. I am one of the21 Inspectors. I do not think we have had the22 pleasure of meeting before. Ms. Noreen Mackey23 is the other Inspector.24 MR. O'SHEA: I have met Ms. Mackey25 before.2 6 JUDGE O'LEARY: You have met Ms. Mackey27 before.28 MR. O'SHEA: Yes.2 9 JUDGE O'LEARY: Yes, I think she told me

4


9/694

1 that.2 MR. 0'SHEA: Yes.3 JUDGE O'LEARY: The position is that there4 are, as you know, four5 Inspectors but only two of the Inspectors will6 be dealing with any matter touching on anything7 we talk about here today to you.8 MR. 0'SHEA: Yes.9 JUDGE O'LEARY: Obviously, we have had to

10 divide up the work and11 that is the way it is divided so far.12 MR. 0'SHEA: I understand, yes.13 JUDGE O'LEARY: The position is that we14 have a number of questions15 to ask you both in your own personal capacity as a16 member of a firm of solicitors and also in your17 capacity as one of the persons named with legal18 authority in the Will of the late Mr. McGonagle.19 MR. 0'SHEA: Indeed.

20 JUDGE O'LEARY: Yes. So, it is in those21 two capacities.22 MR. 0'SHEA: Yes.23 JUDGE O'LEARY: It is a very informal24 procedure. There is only25 one formal part of it as you know and that is the26 question of taking the oath.27 MR. 0'SHEA: Yes.28 JUDGE O'LEARY: That is the only formal29 part of it really.

5


10/694

1 MR. O'SHEA: Yes.2 JUDGE O'LEARY: I note that you have a3 solicitor here with you.4 You probably will not need it but if you feel like5 consulting with the solicitor at any time by all6 means just tell us "Stop" and we will stop and you7 can of course consult with your colleague.8 MR. O'SHEA: Yes.9 JUDGE O'LEARY: And similarly if your

10 colleague feels that it11 is in your interest that we should stop at any time12 all he has to do is to say "Stop" and we will allow13 the interruption.14 MR. O'SHEA: That is why Kevin is here.15 JUDGE O'LEARY: What?16 MR. O'SHEA: That is why he is here.17 JUDGE O'LEARY: That is why he is here,18 yes. I think you are19 wise. People are wise always to have another

20 pair of eyes and ears there.21 MR. O'SHEA: Right, yes.22 JUDGE O'LEARY: I wonder if you would take23 the oath now and we will24 get on to asking you the questions we have.25 MR. O'SHEA: Yes.26272829

6


11/694

1 MR. MICHAEL O'SHEA, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED2 AS FOLLOWS BY JUDGE O'LEARY:345 1 Q. JUDGE O'LEARY: Mr. O'Shea, the position6 is that most of the7 connections which we have discovered relate, I8 would think it is fair to say, to the activities9 of the late Mr. McGonagle?

10 A. Yes.11 2 Q. I think that is a fair summary. There are however12 a number of things relating to your firm to which13 we would also like to refer?14 A. Yes.15 3 Q. However, in order to put the matter straight you16 were appointed under the Will of Mr. O'Shea to be17 the Executor and Trustee of his Estate?18 A. Of Mr. McGonagle.19 MS. MACKEY: Mr. McGonagle.

20 A. Yes.21 4 Q. JUDGE O'LEARY: Of Mr. McGonagle I should22 say?23 A. Yes, I was.24 5 Q. You were?25 A. One of them.26 6 Q. Yes. One of two of them I think?27 A. That is right.28 7 Q. Yes. The other one being a Mr. 0'Reilly-Hyland?29 A. 0'Reilly-Hyland.

7


12/694

1 8 Q. Did you exercise that power?2 A. No.3 9 Q. No?4 A. No, I renounced my rights.5 10 Q. You renounced your rights?6 A. Yes.7 11 Q. Who in fact exercised the power?8 A. His widow.9 12 Q. His widow?

10 A. Barbara.11 13 Q. Yes. As the heir at law is it?12 A. As the residual legatee.13 14 Q. As a residual legatee?14 A. Yes.15 15 Q. All right. Did you act in that matter?16 A. Yes.17 16 Q. Yes, you did. In a professional capacity for him?18 A. Yes.19 17 Q. One of the problems that we have had in dealing

20 with the case of Mr. McGonagle is that we have to21 accept that the widow of Mr. McGonagle was only22 very recently married to him?23 A. That is true, yes.24 18 Q. And she has sent us in various statements with25 regard to her state of knowledge which we accept;26 I mean from a practical viewpoint?27 A. Indeed.28 19 Q. You are probably aware of those statements yourself?29 A. Yes, I am.

8


13/694

1 20 Q. Yes?2 A. I am aware of them.3 21 Q. I mean from your own personal knowledge are we4 wise to give credence to those do you think?5 A. Well, I would have thought so.6 22 Q. Yes?7 A. I mean she...(INTERJECTION).8 23 Q. You...(INTERJECTION)?9 A. I mean...(INTERJECTION).

10 24 Q. From your own knowledge does she know anything11 about the situation?12 A. Well, I can never be certain but I13 know...(INTERJECTION).14 25 Q. Of course I understand that?15 A. But I know Liam was an extraordinarily close,16 careful, prudent and secretive man.17 26 Q. Yes?18 A. He didn't volunteer information to anybody.19 27 Q. Yes?

20 A. And least of all to his wife.21 28 Q. Yes?22 A. Now, I mean I gleaned information over the years23 from time to time. I was never told, you know?24 29 Q. I understand. So, it is entirely consistent that25 she would not know anything really significant?26 A. It certainly is, yes.27 30 Q. All right. We actually accept that?28 A. Yes.29 31 Q. And we will of course reflect that in any decision

9


14/694

1 which we have to take; of course. That however puts2 us in somewhat of a difficulty because it would3 be not unfair to the late Mr. McGonagle to say that4 his name crops up on a number of occasions through5 the course of our investigation?6 A. Yes.7 32 Q. Both as a solicitor and as an individual?8 A. Yes.9 33 Q. I think that...(INTERJECTION)?

10 A. I haven't seen...(INTERJECTION).11 34 Q. You have not seen it; all right?12 A. I have seen some.13 35 Q. All right. The problem which we are faced with is:14 We must identify the clients of the Company we are15 investigating?16 A. Yes.17 36 Q. Which is "Ansbacher"?18 A. Yes.19 37 Q. We are not investigating Mr. McGonagle?

20 A. Yes.21 38 Q. We are not investigating you?22 A. Yes.23 39 Q. We are not investigating anybody?24 A. Yes.25 40 Q. We were investigating the Company?26 A. Yes.27 41 Q. However, one of the jobs that has been given to us28 is that we must identify the clients of the Company.29 A. Right, yes, yes.

10


15/694

1 42 Q. Obviously, we have to consider whether Mr. McGonagle2 was a client of "Ansbacher" or not?3 A. Yes.4 43 Q. Do you know whether he was or not; directly or5 indirectly?6 A. He never told me.7 44 Q. Yes?8 A. But I did obviously advise him in a number of9 respects in connection with a visit to a Tribunal

10 and...(INTERJECTION).11 45 Q. I do not want to...(INTERJECTION)?12 A. And also...(INTERJECTION).13 46 Q. I do not want to...(INTERJECTION)?14 A. I also advised him. So, I am not sure if I15 can answer that.16 47 Q. I do not want any information which you got17 exclusively from giving him advice?18 A. Yes.19 48 Q. I do not want that information?

20 A. Yes.21 4 9 Q. That would be improper and I do not want that22 information?23 A. Yes.24 50 Q. Other than that are you aware of any such25 connection?26 A. He would never have told me.27 51 Q. Yes, yes. Do you know for example of the existence28 of a company called Camille Investments Ltd?29 A. Yes, I have heard the name.

11


16/694

1 52 Q. Yes. Had you any connection yourself with the2 Company?3 A. No, no, but I knew it was an investment company4 of Liam's.5 53 Q. Of Liam's?6 A. Yes.7 54 Q. Did he own it himself?8 A. He did.9 55 Q. He did, yes, yes. It may have been, the shares may

10 have been, in different person's names from time to11 time but I think he was the beneficial owner at all12 times?13 A. I would have thought so, yes.14 56 Q. Yes?15 A. I don't think they were in anybody else's name.16 57 Q. They may?17 A. But I may...(INTERJECTION).18 58 Q. They may have been but...(INTERJECTION)?19 A. I mean I wouldn't necessarily know.

20 59 Q. Yes, yes. I will just show you a letter of the21 30th March 1988, Exhibit 2?22 A. Yes.23 60 Q. Which I think is Mr. McGonagle's own acknowledgement24 that he owns the Company?25 A. Right, yes.26 61 Q. Because obviously unless we know who owned the27 Company we could not proceed on any basis28 (Same Handed), Exhibit 3?29 A. Yes, right. Yes, that seems clear.

12


17/694

1 62 Q. It seems clear enough?2 A. Yes, it does, yes.3 63 Q. And I mean I am just giving you an opportunity of4 looking at it?5 A. Yes, yes.6 64 Q. In case you say, "That is all wrong. He only did7 that because of X, Y or Z"?8 A. No.9 65 Q. All right. There are two other pieces of evidence

10 which I want to put to you as a person who might11 know something about it?12 A. Yes, yes.13 66 Q. And, of course, I accept you might not also know14 anything about it as well?15 A. Yes .16 67 Q. However, I think in fairness to the late17 Mr. McGonagle somebody had better be told about18 these pieces of information because otherwise19 it would be quite improper and I think you are

20 the appropriate person. There is an internal21 memo dated the 16th August 1978. When I say it22 is "internal" it is internal to Guinness Mahon23 Ireland (Same Handed)?24 A. Yes, yes.25 68 Q. You may have already seen that in another context.26 I am not sure whether you have or not?27 A. I probably have seen this before.28 69 Q. You probably have seen it?29 A. Yes .


18/694

1 70 Q. There are three matters that I want to point out2 to you there. Mr. Turvey: Would you explain who3 Mr. Turvey is to me?4 A. He is a friend of Liam McGonagle's.5 71 Q. Yes?6 A. Was a friend, yes.7 72 Q. Yes. Is he an accountant or is he...(INTERJECTION)?8 A. He is an accountant; he is.9 73 Q. Is he?

10 A. Yes.11 74 Q. Yes?12 A. Though he has't...(INTERJECTION).13 75 Q. Has he a Haughey Boland background14 or...(INTERJECTION)?15 A. No, he hasn't. He has always -- I don't think he16 has ever practised as a professional accountant.17 He has always been in business.18 76 Q. Yes?19 A. And -- but he was a friend of Liam's since -- from

20 his school days.21 77 Q. Yes. He seemed to have carriage of a lot of matters22 relating to Camille Investments Ltd over the years?23 A. They were very friendly.24 78 Q. Do you know that of your own knowledge?25 A. Well, they were friendly, you know?26 79 Q. Yes?27 A. And...(INTERJECTION).28 80 Q. However, do you know whether he had a lot of29 involvement in Camille Investments?

14


19/694

1 A. I think Liam would have relied on him from time2 to time, yes.3 81 Q. From time to time?4 A. Yes.5 82 Q. Yes?6 A. Yes.7 83 Q. There are two other matters I want to refer to you:8 Do you see the expression:9

10 "This is a suitably secured situation"?1112 A. Yes.13 84 Q. We have been informed by Guinness & Mahon that14 "suitably secured" in that context means the15 following: That money was being borrowed and16 it was being borrowed on a back-to-back basis17 against money which was on deposit outside this18 jurisdiction. That may have been the North of19 Ireland. It may have been the Channel Islands?

20 A. Yes.21 85 Q. Or it may have been the Cayman Islands?22 A. Yes.23 8 6 Q. Do you know whether Camille Investments had24 any such money of your own knowledge?25 A. I would be very surprised if it had.26 87 Q. Yes?27 A. I would be -- Camille Investments was an Irish2 8 company.29 88 Q. Yes?

15


20/694

1 A. So, I don't think Camille would have had any2 funds outside of the jurisdiction.3 89 Q. Yes?4 A. But again I can't be certain.5 90 Q. Yes, I understand?6 A. But I would be very surprised.78

91 Q. If it was being backed by funds outside thejurisdiction they were probably held in another

9 name?10 A. That's a possibility.11 92 Q. Yes. Because you can see in the bottom that it12 says :13141516

"In the meantime I have asked E.McL.to hold dollars in excess of 300,000.00held on deposit from G.M.C.T to ourorder."

1718 A. Yes .19 93 Q. One of the conclusions the Inspectors might draw20 from that and of course they can be persuaded to21 draw a different conclusion if that is appropriate?22 A. Yes, yes.23 94 Q. One of the conclusions they might draw from it is24 that Camille Investments and its owner had access25 to backing deposits in Guinness Mahon Cayman Trust,26 which was an earlier name of "Ansbacher". Do you27 have any information to confirm or dissuade us from28 adopting that course of action?29 A. I would be I suppose giving privileged information

16


21/694

1 if I were to do otherwise...(INTERJECTION).2 95 Q. I am not interested in the privileged information.3 Other than privileged information...(INTERJECTION)?4 A. I am...(INTERJECTION).5 96 Q. You can forget you know privileged information?6 A. I am...(INTERJECTION).7 97 Q. Forget that?8 A. I...(INTERJECTION).9 98 Q. You do not know?

10 A. I know I have come across the phrase "suitably11 secured" on many occasions.12 99 Q. Yes?13 A. I know how Guinness & Mahon interpret that phrase.14 100 Q. Yes?15 A. I am not sure that it was always interpreted --16 it always reflected the actual position. I have17 come across situations where I think it might have18 been convenient for Mr. Traynor to say to his19 lending committee, "This is adequately secured".

20 101 Q. Yes, I understand. Yes?21 A. Whereas in fact it wasn't but he would have known22 the borrower and would have been quite happy. Now,23 I cannot give you any instances off the top of my24 head of that but I certainly have come across one25 or two instances of that.26 102 Q. Yes. However, Mr. O'Shea, that line of "Defence"27 hardly passes muster in this case when in the course28 of the same memo there is a specific request?29 A. Yes .


22/694

1 103 Q. To set aside 300,000 US dollars, presumably2 US dollars, which are apparently in G.M.C.T?3 A. Indeed.4 104 Q. So, I think that "Defence" which might be open5 to some people hardly applies to this document?6 A. Right, indeed.7 105 Q. You see the point I am making; that is all I am8 saying?9 A. I see the point you are making of course.

10 106 Q. All right, grand. The third piece of evidence11 that we have which would indicate a connection12 between Camille Investments Ltd and "Ansbacher",13 and therefore of course indirectly with14 Mr. McGonagle, is a memo dated or a letter dated15 the 11th March 1990 from Mr. Lanigan-0'Keeffe to16 Mr. Traynor and there is a Schedule attached to17 that. I think in the case of Mr. O'Shea you can18 Mr. O'Shea, I am treating you as a solicitor in19 this regard: I am going to give you the complete

20 document which includes the names of other people21 (Same Handed), Exhibit 4?22 A. Certainly, you can take that...(INTERJECTION).23 107 Q. However, I mean you have to undertake to me not24 to...(INTERJECTION)?25 A. Yes .26 108 Q. To abide by confidence in that regard?27 A. Yes, yes.28 109 Q. Mr. Lanigan-0'Keeffe has informed another person,29 and will in due course no doubt inform us also,


23/694

1 that this Schedule was produced by him for2 Mr. Traynor and it was a Schedule of "suitably3 secured" loans?4 A. Yes.5 110 Q. Persons who had loans through "Ansbacher" that were6 "suitably secured"?7 A. Yes, yes.8 111 Q. And they included a number of persons including9 Liam McGonagle?

10 A. Yes, yes.11 112 Q. All right?12 A. Yes, clearly the case, yes.13 113 Q. Yes?14 A. Yes.15 114 Q. Have you any comment to make on that?16 A. It could be for a number of factors. I can't --17 obviously it would be speculation -- I think you18 can speculate; I think may be correctly. I have19 seen a number of these (indicating), Exhibit 4.

20 115 Q. I can only go on what Mr. Lanigan-0'Keeffe says?21 A. Yes.22 116 Q. That is all I can go on?23 A. Yes.24 117 Q. Because I...(INTERJECTION)?25 A. Yes.26 118 Q. It means nothing to me. All it is is a Schedule?27 A. Yes, yes.28 119 Q. If Mr. Lanigan-0'Keeffe said to me, which I29 anticipate he will not because he has said it

19


24/694

1 differently to another person, but if he in due2 course says to me, "Well, I don't know what3 that list is"?4 A. Yes.5 120 Q. Well, then I will have to take it to out of my6 reckoning; do you understand?7 A. Yes.8 121 Q. However, if he says what I anticipate he is going9 to say?

10 A. Yes, yes.11 122 Q. There can be only one conclusion surely; that12 conclusion is that Mr. Lanigan-0'Keeffe13 thought that...(INTERJECTION)?14 A. That these were...(INTERJECTION).15 123 Q. That Mr. McGonagle had a "suitably secured" loan?16 A. Indeed, yes.17 124 Q. Whether that proves it or not; that is a matter18 of judgment afterwards?19 A. This was a list of facilities made available by

20 Guinness & Mahon to the individuals.21 125 Q. With backing?22 A. With...(INTERJECTION).23 126 Q. To "Ansbacher"?24 A. Yes.25 127 Q. As you will appreciate...(INTERJECTION)?26 A. Yes.27 128 Q. As you will appreciate if you look at the date,28 the 11th May 1990, it can hardly be anything else?29 MR. BARRY: That is a question you

20


25/694

1 are asking, Michael, or2 is that a statement you are making?3 A. Well, I am...(INTERJECTION).4 MR. BARRY: Are you saying that that5 is a list (indicating),6 Exhibit 4?7 A. Well, no. I am assuming it is a list.8 129 Q. JUDGE O'LEARY: Yes. It is a list?9 A. It is a list, yes.

10 MR. BARRY: So, it is a question?11 A. Yes.12 MR. BARRY: Yes, right.13 A. Yes.14 MR. BARRY: It sounded like a15 statement; sorry.16 A. Yes.17 JUDGE O'LEARY: I think coaching the18 witness is neither19 ethical.2 0 MR. BARRY: Excuse me; I am sorry.21 JUDGE O'LEARY: Or certainly necessary.22 MR. BARRY: Excuse me.23 JUDGE O'LEARY: With an expert witness24 like this.2 5 MR. BARRY: Sorry.26 130 Q. JUDGE O'LEARY: However, the reality of

27 the situation as you28 will appreciate?29 A. Yes.

21


26/694

1 131 Q. Is that on the 11th May 1990 Mr. Traynor no2 longer had any connection with Guinness & Mahon?3 A. That is right.4 132 Q. And he is addressed in the letter as being5 Mr. J. D. Traynor of "Ansbacher" Limited?6 A. Yes.7 133 Q. So, we can take it that it has an "Ansbacher"8 connection?9 A. I ... (INTERJECTION) .

10 134 Q. We can take it that Mr. Lanigan-0'Keeffe thought11 it had an "Ansbacher" connection?12 A. Thought -- well, perhaps he did, yes. Perhaps13 he did.14 135 Q. Yes. That is a matter that...(INTERJECTION)?15 A. Now, I know from talking to Liam that Liam had16 always had the assets of Camille securing any17 borrowings he had personally.18 136 Q. Yes?19 A. And including also the Deeds to No. 29 Molesworth

20 Street.21 137 Q. All right?22 A. And insofar as Liam was concerned that was security23 that they held.24 138 Q. Yes, I understand that?25 A. And if there was anything in "Ansbacher" it wasn't26 necessary.27 139 Q. That may well be the case?28 A. Now...(INTERJECTION).29 140 Q. However, we have found many examples of that?

22


27/694

1 A. Indeed.2 141 Q. Many examples of that?3 A. But certainly No. 29 Molesworth Street -- I am4 not sure had it been sold at that time or not but5 it was substantially more than the borrowing than6 was there (indicating), Exhibit 4, or the borrowing78

figure there (indicating), Exhibit 4, and I thinkalso the other assets of Camille would have been in

9 the region of a few hundred thousand pounds. They10 were basically investments and again they would have11 been there as security. So, I don't know what else12 or what other records Guinness & Mahon might have13 in relation to that type of security.14 142 Q. Yes?15 A. And whether they would have considered that to16 be adequately secured or not but I mean I hear17 what you are saying, yes.18 143 Q. You can take it that their evidence to us has been19 that adequately secured means offshore?

20 A. Yes, offshore, yes, yes.21 144 Q. It does not necessarily mean Cayman?22 A. Yes .23 145 Q. However, it means offshore?24 A. Yes, yes.25 146 Q. All right. The last thing I want to show you in26 the Camille mode of this is a document signed by27 yourself apparently (Same Handed). Is that your28 signature (indicating), Exhibit 5?29 A. It is, yes. Yes, it is.


28/694

1 147 Q. In what capacity did you sign that?2 A. I have no idea.3 148 Q. Whose signature is it underneath? There appear to4 be two signatures on it?5 A. Yes. That is Des Turvey's signature.6 14 9 Q. Yes. That is the one which we have seen in many7 documents dealing with Camille?8 A. Yes.9 150 Q. And we will of course in due course deal with

10 that with Mr. Turvey?11 A. And that is Mr. Turvey.12 151 Q. Who were not the auditors?13 A. No. I haven't seen the Company's file. Was I14 a Director at some stage of Camille?15 152 Q. I do not know?16 A. Yes.17 153 Q. I am asking you?18 A. I honestly...(INTERJECTION).19 154 Q. You told me you had nothing to do with the Company.

20 A. I have...(INTERJECTION).21 155 Q. And I am just saying to you that I have come across22 this document (indicating), Exhibit 5?23 A. I have no idea what -- why my signature is there24 (indicating), Exhibit 5.25 156 Q. I wonder if you would have a look at it yourself?26 A. Yes.27 157 Q. And if you can come up with any explanation?28 A. Yes.29 158 Q. That would be of assistance to us?

24


29/694

1 A. Yes.2 159 Q. We would appreciate it?3 A. Yes. It is clearly a request to the bank to provide4 information to Haughey Boland but I cannot tell you5 in what capacity I signed that (indicating),6 Exhibit 5.7 160 Q. Do you see that the document itself says you signed8 as an authorised signature?9 A. Yes.

10 161 Q. Were you an authorised signature for that Company?11 A. I don't believe so.12 162 Q. Yes. I have come across no information that you in13 fact were an authorised signature of the Company?14 A. Yes.15 163 Q. However, I wonder would you look at it?16 A. Yes.17 164 Q. And see whether there is any further information18 you can give us as a result of your investigations?19 A. I will certainly check to see was I a Director

20 at that stage.21 165 Q. Exactly?22 A. Yes.23 166 Q. I wonder would you do that?24 A. Yes, yes.25 167 Q. I think it would be of assistance to us if you26 did that?27 A. Certainly, yes.28 168 Q. All right?29 A. Yes.

25


30/694

1 169 Q. Thank you. Do you know anything about2 Mr. McGonagle's involvement in any other3 companies with "Ansbacher" connections other4 than in a...(INTERJECTION)?5 A. Professional?6 170 Q. Yes; professional capacity?7 A. I don't think so. Other than in a professional8 capacity, no.9 171 Q. Yes. I am not interested...(INTERJECTION)?

10 A. Not that I --11 172 Q. Yes?12 A. I mean a number of companies have come up certainly.13 173 Q. Yes?14 A. If you...(INTERJECTION).15 174 Q. Was he involved in a company called Pine Securities?16 A. No.17 175 Q. No?18 A. He wasn't.19 176 Q. Was he involved in a company called Beresford

20 Investments?21 A. I believe he was.22 177 Q. Yes. Were you involved in the Company called23 Beresford Investments?24 A. No, but I remember it through the office. I25 think it bought and sold a property and I think26 lost a small amount of money in the process.27 178 Q. Yes. Do you know who the beneficial owners of28 that Company were?29 A. I think there were a number of individuals.

26


31/694

1 179 Q. Including Mr. McGonagle?2 A. Including, yes.3 180 Q. Yes. Were you a beneficial owner of the Company?4 A. No.5 181 Q. That also, according to the records of GMI and6 that is all I am talking about is the records7 of GMI?8 A. Yes.9 182 Q. Had a "suitably secured" loan?

10 A. Yes, I have seen those.11 183 Q. You have seen those?12 A. Yes.13 184 Q. I have no knowledge as to what that "suitably14 secured" loan was. I do not have the same knowledge15 as I have in the case of the previous one that I put16 to you; do you understand?17 A. Yes.18 185 Q. Yes. Were you familiar with a company called19 British Isle Investments?

20 A. I have heard the name.21 186 Q. Yes. Were you an owner of that Company yourself?22 A. No.23 187 Q. Had you any interest in the Company?24 A. None, none.25 188 Q. Did Mr. McGonagle have an interest in the Company?26 A. That would be again information I would have27 gleaned from Mr. McGonagle.28 189 Q. In a professional capacity?29 A. In a professional capacity, yes.

27


32/694

1 190 Q. However, other than that information?2 A. Other than that I wouldn't know.3 191 Q. You would not know?4 A. No, I wouldn't know.5 192 Q. However, British Isle Investments Company or6 whatever the precise name of it was?7 A. Yes.8 193 Q. Was a very famous Company?9 A. Yes.

10 194 Q. I mean it had been the subject of much speculation?11 A. Indeed. I think I...(INTERJECTION).12 195 Q. So, I mean it is not just like a...(INTERJECTION)?13 A. I think I -- yes, I think I know what you are14 referring to.15 196 Q. Yes. In the United Kingdom?16 A. That is right, yes.17 197 Q. There was a company investigation?18 A. There was.19 198 Q. And British Isle Investments was at the very centre

20 of that company investigation?21 A. Yes, that is right.22 199 Q. Surely at that time quite separate from any advice23 which you gave him in later life...(INTERJECTION)?24 A. Well, I remember a little bit about that. There25 were two UK --26 200 Q. Yes?27 A. There were two British property developers that28 Liam had a business relationship with. We -- I29 think they were involved in a US public -- sorry,

28


33/694

1 a UK company called Norwest Hoist Ltd and I think2 it was in that context that the inquiry arose but3 I didn't know -- I never knew the details of the4 inquiry.5 201 Q. I can assure you I have no interest in the details6 of the inquiry?7 A. I know there was a suggestion that in some way8 they had taken money out of Norwest Hoist and --9 but I never knew the...(INTERJECTION).

10 202 Q. However, was not the fact of Mr. McGonagle and11 this British Isle Investments Company central12 to the issue to be deciding in that inquiry13 in England and did they not come to Dublin to14 interview Mr. McGonagle?15 A. I wasn't aware of that. I thought he hadn't been16 interviewed but...(INTERJECTION).17 203 Q. No, he had not?18 A. Yes.19 204 Q. Because when they came to Dublin he refused to

20 be interviewed?21 A. I see, I see. All right.22 205 Q. However, you surely must have known that?23 A. It is just that I have heard the name but whether24 it was a company that was solely controlled by25 these two English property developers or with2 6 Liam McGonagle I don't know.27 206 Q. Yes?28 A. It -- I am not sure what the results of the29 inquiry were either but the...(INTERJECTION).

29


34/694

1 207 Q. Yes, I see. However, you do not know anything2 about that Company as such?3 A. Other than in the context of professional advice,4 no.5 208 Q. Yes?6 A. I mean I was aware vaguely of the inquiry.7 209 Q. Yes?8 A. But I can't say I know anything about it.9 210 Q. Yes. On the question of professional advice:

10 Ms. Cummins mentions to me, and it is quite true,11 that the recent law on that matter seems to12 differentiate between information which a solicitor13 gets while acting for a Client with regard to who14 owns a company on the one hand?15 A. Yes .16 211 Q. And the advice that he or she tenders to that person17 arising from that consultation?18 A. Yes .19 212 Q. And that all seems to have come down in favour of a20 solicitor not being able to exercise privilege with21 regard to information with regard for example to the22 ownership of a company?23 A. Well, I think they...(INTERJECTION).24 213 Q. Is that not the current state of the law?25 A. I thought it was -- I mean I bow to your knowledge26 in that regard, Judge.27 214 Q. Yes?28 A. But I did look at Judge Kelly's decision in the29 Miley -v- Miley case and he clearly said there you

30


35/694

1 cannot -- you must disclose the name of your client2 215 Q. Yes?3 A. And he decided, or he confirmed I think the legal4 position, that legal assistance isn't privileged.5 Legal advice is, which I think is the sort of6 language he used.78

216 Q. Any way, Mr. O'Shea, I am not going down that road;I can assure you?

9 A. Yes .10 217 Q. Because with regard to Mr. McGonagle I certainly11 have enough information to be able to make a12 decision whether or not he was a client of13 "Ansbacher"?14 A. Okay, indeed.15 218 Q. I may be a bit deficient with regard to being16 able to precisely define the extent to which he17 was a client?18 A. Okay, yes.19 219 Q. However, I do not think that is sufficiently20 important to my investigation of "Ansbacher"21 for me to go to the scaffold over it?22 A. Indeed, yes.23 220 Q. Do you understand what I mean?24 A. Indeed.25 221 Q. If it was necessary and if it was a matter of26 life or death I would pursue the matter further27 with you but I am not interested in pursuing28 the matter further with you at this stage for29 that reason?


36/694

1 A. Very well.2 222 Q. All right?3 A. Thank you.4 223 Q. I come now to the question of the relationship5 between "Ansbacher" and your company?6 A. Yes .7 224 Q. A firm of solicitors?8 A. Yes .9 225 Q. And we have received your statement in that regard?

10 A. Yes .11 226 Q. And it is helpful and thank you very much indeed12 for the statement, Exhibit 6. It is of considerable13 assistance to us. We know that your company acted14 for Cayman International Bank & Trust Company15 Limited, which was another of the names of16 "Ansbacher"?17 A. Yes .18 227 Q. And really we are not interested in that. We19 really have no concerns with regard to that.

20 You are entitled to act for those people if21 you want. However, we are interested in the22 1993 situation?23 A. Yes .24 228 Q. About this fee apparently that was paid by a UK25 Client of the firm. What was the amount of that26 approximately? I do not want the...(INTERJECTION)?27 A. Approximately 40,000.28 229 Q. 40,000, yes. Do you know how long it was invested29 somewhere?


37/694

1 A. I would hazard a guess and say a number of months;2 may be up to five or six months perhaps.3 230 Q. Yes?4 A. May be shorter.5 231 Q. Yes. If I was to tell you that our information is6 that it was in Hamilton Ross rather than Kentford7 would you know whether that is right or wrong?8 A. I won't.9 232 Q. Yes?

10 A. I know the payment came from Kentford.11 233 Q. Yes. However, I think Kentford was merely a12 device used for making payments?13 A. May be so, yes.14 234 Q. Do you understand?15 A. May be so, yes.16 235 Q. It was not an investment vehicle?17 A. Yes, yes.18 236 Q. Insofar as we have been able to ascertain?19 A. Yes.

20 237 Q. Kentford was the mechanism by which money was paid21 to Irish people?22 A. Yes.23 238 Q. From money which had been abroad; do you understand24 what I mean?25 A. Yes, I do, yes.26 239 Q. Yes. That was...(INTERJECTION)?27 A. I do, yes.28 240 Q. So, as far as you were concerned it was Kentford?29 A. Yes.

33


38/694

1 241 Q. Do you remember the circumstances in which it was2 put where-ever it was put; leaving aside for the3 moment where it was put?4 A. I think it was probably Liam's idea.5 242 Q. Yes?6 A. To route it through Des Traynor.7 243 Q. Yes?8 A. And Liam possibly mentioned it to me.9 244 Q. Yes?

10 A. In any event it happened.11 245 Q. Yes?12 A. And subsequently payments were made by Kentford.13 246 Q. Yes. Were you familiar at that time with where it14 was going yourself?15 A. No, I had no idea.16 247 Q. You had no idea?17 A. I had no idea.18 248 Q. When you say it was "Des Traynor" do you think19 it was coming to Des Traynor in Ireland or it

20 was coming to Des Traynor where?21 A. Well... (INTERJECTION) .22 249 Q. Or did you know?23 A. Obviously, I knew of Des's connection with24 Guinness & Mahon. I didn't give it any thought25 as to what other banking connections he had.26 Obviously, at that time he was no longer in27 Guinness & Mahon.28 250 Q. I mean he had left Guinness & Mahon at that stage29 for five years?

34


39/694

1 A. That is true, that is true, but in any event he2 was happy to facilitate Liam and did and I didn't3 really think very much about it one way or the4 other.5 251 Q. Yes. You are not familiar, are you, with whether6 or not -- it was then eventually brought into this7 Country. The money was brought into this Country,8 was it, and distributed between you?9 A. It was distributed to the partners, it was.

10 252 Q. And where did it end up? Did it end up in the11 firm's account or where did it end up?12 A. No, it ended up in the partner's account.13 253 Q. In...(INTERJECTION)?14 A. Individually.15 254 Q. Within the firm?16 A. Individually.17 255 Q. Individually?18 A. Yes, individually.19 256 Q. Individually, yes, I see. Was it expected that the

20 partners would make whatever returns were necessary21 arising out of that?22 A. Yes.23 257 Q. Yes?24 A. Well, if they were doing it, yes.25 258 Q. Yes?26 A. Yes.27 259 Q. And was this money earned abroad28 or...(INTERJECTION)?29 A. It was earned abroad.

35


40/694

1 260 Q. Earned abroad?2 A. Yes, it was a UK Client as I recall.3 261 Q. Yes, I see, I see. Do you remember the time of4 the year in 1993 that you received that money?5 A. I don't remember.6 262 Q. I wonder could you find that out for us?7 A. I could.8 263 Q. Yes?9 A. Yes, I could. I think there may be some

10 correspondence.11 264 Q. Yes. Well, that is fair enough?12 A. But I will certainly see if I can find that out.13 265 Q. Yes. That would be of assistance to us?14 A. Yes.15 266 Q. It always seems to us that there was a small balance16 remaining in Hamilton Ross after the payment was17 made even as late as the 31st December 1993 of18 some 1,240?19 A. I think there was. I think that may have been

20 interest.21 267 Q. Yes?22 A. Which was subsequently divided again.23 268 Q. At a later date?24 A. At a later date.25 269 Q. Yes. I wonder would you just give us the dates26 of those?27 A. Certainly.28 270 Q. It would be of considerable assistance to us?29 A. Yes.

36


41/694

1 271 Q. All right?2 A. Okay.3 272 Q. Thank you very much indeed. That is grand.4 Have I -- from time to time -- as you say in5 your statement, Exhibit 6: On one occasion you6 respected the firm and I am not concerned about78

that November 1993 instruction that you received.Had you ever acted for the Firm before that?

9 A. No, not to my knowledge.10 273 Q. No, not to your knowledge?11 A. Yes .12 274 Q. I see, okay. Had you ever received money from the13 Firm before that?14 A. No.15 275 Q. All right. We have, I have, two other documents16 to show you. One really is and I want to explain17 its frailty to you because I do not like making18 claims for documents that I cannot stand over, as19 you will appreciate. This is a document at page 28,

20 Ms. Cummins, please (Same Handed), Exhibit 7?21 A. Thanks.22 276 Q. This is a memo from Mr. Traynor to Mr. O'Dwyer?23 A. Yes .24 277 Q. They were both working in Guinness & Mahon at25 the time?26 A. Yes .27 278 Q. On the face of it it looks just like a28 Guinness & Mahon payment?29 A. Yes .


42/694

1 279 Q. There are however if you like two aspects of2 the matter which give rise to some possibility,3 and I am not putting it any stronger than that,4 of an "Ansbacher" connection. One is the fact5 that it was a sterling draft?6 A. Yes .78

280 Q. Which was a little unusual if the money wasin Ireland in ordinary circumstances, and secondly

9 Redshank Investments. Have you heard of that10 Company?11 A. I have heard of that again in a professional12 capacity, yes.13 281 Q. Yes. That Redshank Investments, the Inspectors14 believe, had a connection with McGonagle. The15 Inspectors believe that?16 A. Yes .17 282 Q. We are not asking you to confirm or deny that?18 A. Yes .19 283 Q. And that it may well have had an "Ansbacher"20 connection?21 A. Yes .22 284 Q. Do you know anything about that payment?23 A. I have a vague memory I have to say.24 285 Q. Yes?25 A. But only that. I can't say in what context it is.26 The other people named were partners in the firm.27 So, it may be in that context that this payment28 was made but I cannot...(INTERJECTION).29 286 Q. It is like as if it is a division of some money

38


43/694

1 between partners in the Firm with Mr. McGonagle's2 section going to Redshanks?3 A. Indeed.4 287 Q. Is that not what it looks like?5 A. Indeed.6 288 Q. The source of that fund, of those funds, are a7 cause of concern to us. I wonder would you8 think about that?9 A. I will, yes.

10 289 Q. And would you revert to us with regard to that?11 A. Yes, I will.12 290 Q. I do not want to...(INTERJECTION)?13 A. I can't recall now.14 291 Q. Yes, I understand?15 A. Yes.16 292 Q. I understand that?17 A. Yes.18 293 Q. However, it may be worth while thinking about it?19 A. Yes.

20 294 Q. All right?21 A. Certainly.22 295 Q. The difficulty about this payment as far as we are23 concerned is that it mentions you by name rather24 than the Firm?25 A. Indeed, yes.26 296 Q. Of course we have to be very careful and we will27 be very careful and certainly we will be very28 careful in respect of any payment of 1,650?29 A. Yes.

39


44/694

1 297 Q. Which is not even in 1984 an amazing sum of money?2 A. Yes .3 298 Q. However, at the same time we have to satisfy4 ourselves that it does not have an "Ansbacher"5 connection?6 A. Yes, indeed.7 299 Q. So, any assistance you can give us in that regard?8 A. Fine, yes.9 300 Q. Otherwise we may have to go and investigate it.

10 We have not really investigated it that much at11 this stage?12 A. Yes, okay.13 301 Q. However, if you can satisfy us so be it?14 A. Very well.15 302 Q. We will just let it stand at that; all right?16 A. Certainly.17 303 Q. All right. That is one -- you might come back to18 us on that, Mr. O'Shea?19 A. Yes, I will.

20 304 Q. The other thing is this: I wonder would you just21 show Mr. O'Shea number 2 9 as well (Same Handed),22 Exhibit 8? That has -- that shows Redshank23 Investments as being a Client of College Trustees.24 You can take it that at that stage our information25 is that College Trustees' funds, not necessarily all26 of them but many of the College Trustees' funds27 which they had invested for clients, were routed28 for some inexplicable reason through "Ansbacher"?29 A. Yes, I see.


45/694

1 305 Q. So, here you have a situation where we know that2 Redshank Investments Limited was a College Trustee3 client. We know that in 1985, which was the year4 after that, it had informed various parties with5 regard to the Registered Office and we know that6 Redshank Investments is connected with the 198478

payment. We are of the belief but we cannotmathematically prove it at this stage that Redshank

9 Investments was a Liam McGonagle company but we10 believe that to be the case. Putting all of11 those things together we had a certain concern?12 A. Yes .13 306 Q. And I will not put it any stronger than that;14 all right?15 A. Yes .16 307 Q. The only other document I want to show you,17 Mr. 0'Shea, is this: It is a 18th May 199218 document. It is page 30 (Same Handed), Exhibit 9?19 A. Thanks.

20 308 Q. That does not appear in your statement, Exhibit 6?21 A. No, and I have no recollection of it.22 309 Q. Yes?23 A. I have no idea what it is for.24 310 Q. I wonder would it be an earlier part of the 40,00025 even though the 40,000 was there in December 1992?26 Could it have been 50,000 and could this be 10,00027 of it?28 A. I don't think so.29 311 Q. You do not think so?


46/694

1 A. No, I don't think so.2 312 Q. You think it is separate from that. You do note3 that they are talking about "Ansbacher" Limited?4 A. Yes, I do.5 313 Q. Rather than Hamilton Ross?6 A. Yes.7 314 Q. However, you can take it that Hamilton Ross and8 "Ansbacher" were interchangeable?9 A. Indeed, yes.

10 315 Q. Names used by these parties?11 A. Yes, indeed, yes.12 316 Q. And I would not attach too much significance to13 that?14 A. Yes.15 317 Q. However, you can see that it is a payment not to16 Mr. McGonagle?17 A. Yes, Kennedy McGonagle Ballagh.18 318 Q. But to Kennedy McGonagle Ballagh?19 A. Yes, I can see that. I can see that. I am --

20 I have no idea what for.21 319 Q. I wonder could you investigate that? There is22 bound to be a record of that somewhere?23 A. Yes.24 320 Q. It is only 1992?25 A. Yes. Yes, I agree.26 321 Q. Yes?27 A. I agree.28 322 Q. I wonder could you give us an explanation of that?29 A. Certainly, okay.

42


47/694

1 323 Q. Have you any memory of it yourself?2 A. None. Not at this point in time any way I don't3 but I certainly will -- I mean we can check our4 ledgers and find out from that; hopefully find5 out from that.6 324 Q. You see could I explain where we are going,7 Mr. 0'Shea?8 A. Yes, yes.9 325 Q. So that everybody understands where we are?

10 A. Yes.11 326 Q. We will have to consider all the evidence as to12 whether Mr. McGonagle was a Client of "Ansbacher"?13 A. Yes.14 327 Q. Obviously I cannot tell you what the result of that15 conclusion will be?16 A. Yes.17 328 Q. However, let us assume for a working hypothesis at18 the moment that we concluded that he was a Client19 of "Ansbacher"?

20 A. Yes, yes.21 329 Q. We then have to separately consider whether22 Kennedy McGonagle Ballagh were Clients of23 "Ansbacher"?24 A. Yes.25 330 Q. It is a separate consideration?26 A. Yes.27 331 Q. And we are highly conscious of that?28 A. Yes.29 332 Q. Of keeping it separate?

43


48/694

1 A. Yes.2 333 Q. So, that is why we are particularly honing in3 on this (indicating), Exhibit 9?4 A. And we can come back to you on that.5 334 Q. Yes?6 A. I will come back to you on that.7 335 Q. Yes. All right. That would be great. I wonder8 when you are coming back to us on that?9 A. Yes.

10 336 Q. Would you do us the courtesy of when you are11 writing to us in the letter would you put a note12 at the bottom of the letter to say that, "This13 can be included as part of my sworn testimony"?14 A. Sure.15 337 Q. Do you understand that?16 A. Yes, yes.17 338 Q. That will enable us then not to have you to18 come back to swear it again?19 A. Fine, okay.

20 339 Q. Do you understand?21 A. Certainly.22 340 Q. I think that may will be in everyone's interest23 to do that?24 A. Certainly, okay.25 341 Q. I wonder could you do that reasonably quickly26 because we are getting to the end of this phase27 of our inquiries?28 A. Yes.29 342 Q. And we are obviously anxious to tidy it up fairly

44


49/694

1 quickly?2 A. Yes, yes.3 343 Q. I think there is only one other thing that I have4 to say to you and it is this: That Ms. Cummins had5 a telephone call with you on the 27th February and6 that is grand?7 A. Yes.8 344 Q. It was only a housekeeping telephone call?9 A. Yes.

10 345 Q. There is no difficulty about it?11 A. Right.12 346 Q. However, the last sentence is:1314 "He also told me that Liam McGonaglehad arranged through Des Traynor for15 a job to be done for the partners andthey were unaware of the extent of it16 until relatively recently."1718 What were you referring to in that?19 A. I presume we are referring to the payment in

20 1993 of the fee.21 347 Q. Yes?22 A. I presume that was it.23 348 Q. Yes. Could it have been anything else?24 A. I can't think of anything. No, it wouldn't25 have been anything else.26 349 Q. All right?27 A. No.28 350 Q. That is grand?29 A. Yes.

45


50/694

1 351 Q. I just wanted to check?2 A. Yes, that is my...(INTERJECTION).3 352 Q. That that was in fact the situation?4 A. Yes, that is my recollection of it.5 353 Q. That is your recollection?6 A. But I mean you surprised me about that other payment7 in 1984.8 354 Q. Well... (INTERJECTION)?9 A. No, I have...(INTERJECTION).

10 355 Q. In 1984 or 1992? Which is more surprising to you?11 A. No the -- not that one (indicating). The other12 one in 1984 I think.13 356 Q. 1984?14 A. Isn't it the memo?15 357 Q. Yes, I see?16 A. On the 5th September 1984, Exhibit 7.17 358 Q. Yes?18 A. I am surprised at that. I have no recollection19 of that.

20 359 Q. You have no recollection of that at all. I do21 understand how these things can happen?22 A. Yes.23 360 Q. Without you having a recollection of them?24 A. Yes.25 361 Q. However, I wonder whatever about the 1984 one26 which is mildly suspicious?27 A. Yes.28 362 Q. The 1992 one is a positive connection?29 A. Yes.

46


51/694

1 363 Q. Which has to be explained?2 A. Sure.3 364 Q. I mean that is the position?4 A. Yes, okay.5 365 Q. All right?6 A. Well, we can hopefully get that explanation from7 you.8 366 Q. Ms. Mackey?9 MS. MACKEY: No, no questions.

10 JUDGE O'LEARY: Mr. O'Shea, thank you11 very much indeed.12 A. Thank you.13 367 Q. That is actually everything we have to say to you14 and thank you very much for all your cooperation15 and we appreciate it greatly. We would appreciate16 early replies. It would facilitate us greatly if17 you could do that?18 A. Yes, yes.19 368 Q. Obviously part of the process is the signing of

20 the transcript?21 A. Yes.22 369 Q. Because it is included in the Legislation?23 A. Yes, yes. I mean obviously...(INTERJECTION).24 370 Q. So, in due course Ms. Cummins will be in25 touch with your firm and you can make the26 necessary arrangements?27 A. So, I mean I can come in to sign it whenever28 it is ready.29 371 Q. All right?

47


52/694

1 A. Thank you.2 372 Q. And copies of the transcript can be got for a3 payment of?4 MS. CUMMINS: 60.5 JUDGE O'LEARY: Of 60.6 A. Yes.7 373 Q. All right?8 A. Thank you.9 374 Q. Thank you very much indeed.

10 A. Thank you.1112 THE EXAMINATION WAS THEN CONCLUDED1314151617181920212223242526

272829

48


53/694

^ (


54/694

Appendix XV (1) ( l) (b )


55/694

MICHAEL O'SHEA

I understand that I have been called to give evidence pursuant to the Inspectors'powers set forth, inter alia, in Section 10(2) of the Companies Act, 1990.I am here today because of the exercise of the Inspectors' right to compel myattendance. I am not here voluntarily.I am not prepared to answer questions voluntarily.I understand the Inspectors have power toforce me answer their questions, providedalways the questions are within the scope of their investigation. All answers I givetoday pre given as a result of the exercise of the Inspectors of their powers underSection 10 anw r such other statutory powers as they have to compel answers and nototherwise.I have asked the Inspectors not to exercise their power to compel my testimony. Theyhave insisted I answer all questions under compulsion of law.


56/694


57/694

KENNEDY MCGONAGLE BALLAGHINCORPORATING BELL BRANICAN O'DONNELL & O'BRIEN

s o l i c i t o r s2 0 N O R T H U M B E R L A N D R O A D D U B L I N 4

T E L 6 6 0 9 7 9 9 P A X 6 6 0 9 4 3 4E M A I L : i n f o @ k m b . i ewww.kmb.icThe Office of the Inspectors appointed bjAfti?5 Our ref: MO'S/DFHigh Court to Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd.3"1 FloorTrident House , .. .Blackrock i -Co Dublin

16 March 2001Re: Ansbacher rCavmairt Limited f'theCompanv")

Dear Inspectors,I have nad no J , ungs personally with the Company. However I believe the Firm ofKennedy McGonagle Ballagh in which T am a nartner have had the followingdealings.1. In November 1993 the firm was instructed by Cayman International Bank andTrust Company Limited to pursue a guarantor on foot of a guarantee given toGuinness & Mahon Cayman Trust Limited on behalf of a Cayman registeredcompany called Coral Reef Securities Limited. Proceedings were institutedagainst the guarantor and were ultimately settled. Our fee of 3,210 andoutlay was discharged by the Company. The Solicitor who handled thismatter for the Company was Kevin Barry.2. Also in 1993 a fee paid by a U.K. client of the Firm was lodged by the partnerwho acted for this client with the late JD . Traynor and this fee wassubsequently paid to the partners including me through Kentford SecuritiesLimited. The partner who handled this matter was the late Liam D.McGonagle who was a personalfriend of the late J.D. Traynor. The U.K.

client was not a client of the Company and did not avail of any of the servicesprovided by the Company. I believe Mr. Traynor merely facilitated my latepartner, Liam D. McGonagle and neither he nor the Company nor KentfordSecurities were paid a fee for this service. 13. In 1995 the Firm advised the Company in connection with a loan granted toColumbia Investments (an unlimited Irish registered company) and also inrespect of a guarantee and pledge agreement by Columbia InvestmentsLimited to the Company in respect of loans made by the Company to twoCayman Island registered companies. The Company discharged our fee of6,750 and outlay for this work which was handled by Olivia M cCann, aform er assistant in the Firm.

Mll iUI I. J. O'mica ROTibH l>, HAU.ACill IHRIiNCi: I-:. DIXON KIA'IN ('. HAIMV (TOW* \ Jl IX,Iassistants: ik.ix'a iii-mry auviha n. "uvim
mailto:[email protected]://www.kmb.ic/http://www.kmb.ic/mailto:[email protected]


58/694

4. Also in 1995 the firm was instructed in relation to an application by theCompany to the High Court for leave to extend the timefor filing Form 47with the Companies Office in respect of the security referred to at 3 above.The Company discharged our fee of 400 plus outlay for this work which wasagain handled by Olivia McCann.5. I have personally been involved in advising a number of clients who have hador have a relationship with the Compaq and this advice has been given in thecontext of McCracken and Moriarty Tribunals and statements and attendances

before you.The Company ' provided no service to me personally and I have not establishedanv trust mana?d by the Company nor tr m u lm m v M m t m T- the beneficiary of anytrust managed by the Company.I have not deposited any money with the Company or with Guinness & Mahon(Ireland) Limited however Kennedy McGonagle Ballagh hasfrom time o time usedthe services of Guinness & Mahon (Ireland) Limited. It has deposited the Finn 'smoney and clients' money with that Bankfrom ime totimeand during one or both ofthe Bank strikes it used banking facilities provided by that Bank.Guinness & Mahon has provided a normal commercial loan to the partners in the firmincluding me to fund the purchase of No. 18 Northumberland Road. This loan wassecured against the property purchased and our personal guarantees. It was notsecured on any funds held by the Company.Apart from the service mentioned at 2 above, provided by Kentford SecuritiesLimited, no service has been provided to me by any of the other companies listed inyour letter namely, Amiens Securities Limited, Amiens Investments Limited, andIrish Intercontinental Bank Limited. The only services provided by Guinness &Mahon (Ireland) Limited were those mentioned above in the preceding twoparagraphs.No service has been provided to me by any of the companies mentioned in your letterand established in the Channel Islands.Yours faithfully,


59/694


60/694

n! . 3 t h September, 1984C o u ld 7 0 a p l e a s e lo d g e tfae a t t a c h e d c h eq u e f o r2 8 , 2 5 0 S t e r l i n g t o S un dr y P e rs on a a n d g i v e ae foarS t e r l in g d r a f t s a s follows: -

Michael O'SheaT. BisonBedshanfcZnvestnenta

1 , 6 5 0 1 , 6 5 0

3 , 1 3 52 5 0

1. b . T .JDT/AJW


61/694

Appendix XV (1) ( l) (e )


62/694

CoIIegeTrustees LimitedMCA/ 2nd May, 1985H. M. Greffier.Royal Court House,St. Pater Port,Guernsey. f&CdQS

J* -3AtDear Sir.

RE V! ANK INVE5THEHTS LIMITED \TJxa registered office and the post office box' number of theabove c o m p a n i e s ' w a a changed on 15th April, 1985. The regis-tered office is now situated at-

Plateau Kignot.Rue des Cornets,St. Peter Port,Guernsey.Correspondence should now be addressed to P.O. Box 223.Yours faithfully.for COLLEGE TRUSTEES LIMITED,

D. J. BarryDirector

P.O. t u x 22. St. JnliimV Owirr, 84. Julian'* Sr. Peitr Pan, i u e m w j , hannel bhmlx.TisispHwie: CncrnMV 2H(!I I TW: IIJIU: Rqjliimilnn i CucrMr* 7


63/694

Appendix XV (1) (l) (f )


64/694

Pleasereply o:42 FjtrwxDiam Square,Dublin!Tel: 765144/763065Fsuc $12035

Ansbacher LimitedP.O. Box SS7. QraodCiytnafl,C*yna hhnriit,British Wejt IndiesTelephone: (809) 949*633 Telex: CP 430JFacsimile (809) 949-TKtf (M) S49-5M7

Ronan Bednond, Esq.,Corporate Services, . . . Irish Intercontinental Bank Halted,91 Merrlon Square,DOBIiIN 2.

18th May, 1992.

C Dear Konan,Could you please arrange to let ma have for collection an XrlahPounds cheque for IRS10,000 payable to Kennedy KeOonagla Ballaghand debit the Sterling cost to Ansbaaher limited AccountNo.02/01087/B1.yours sincerely,

For ANSB&CttBH ItlMlTBD

CTDT/AJW*.iiortw*twBBrBMiM^^ wjHomm


65/694

Appendix XV (1) (1) (g)


66/694

u iViTs l i . i c1 1 o r L i m i t e dI" ov ni'in

>

Jf i i ii w v ^ ^ 2| IfMxllli w^wif

Ml/ '-if/'>'


67/694

A N S B A C H E R L I M I V i DP .O . Box 887 G ran d Ca ym an Br i t is h W es t In d iesT e l e p h o n e N o . 9 4 6 5 3 / 4T e l ex C P 3 0 5 C a b l e A d d r e s s G u i n n e s s

A / A 5 4A C CO U N T N U M B ER 8 0 0 0 1 6 4 2 P AG EB A LA N CES S H OW N A RE IN: s t e r l i n g

0.00*3 7 ' V , 9 .5 9

37549.59y


68/694

r)I T | 0 M 6 e O U R I M

'lAHILTON ROSS

Jif').';. III!

I ,(>:'. />' . M' > /' >. M" . ' ( r > )v i :/ '-'3i i :/()!/-J:.i '/')>/-.)ryU9/93

BROUGHT FORWARDDRAWNDRAWNDRAWNPHAWNu-yifiy?. r?7JJWJOO. 00I i i ! - I t o 3 0/ 0 9/ 9 3


69/694

A N S B A C H ER L I M I \ i DP . O . B o x 8 8 7 G r a n d C a y m a n B r i t is h W e s t I n d i e sT e l e p h o n e N o . 9 4 6 5 3 / 4T e l ex C P 3 0 5 C a b l e A d d r e s s G u i n n e s s

A/A 54ACCOUNT NUMBER 00001642 PAGE 4BALANCES SHOWN ARE IN: s t ?.r 1 i n g

10030.006701.923075.003"75.00'(390. on376A.00

10036,391682.51442.04

2 1 2 4 . 5 5 /


70/694

Appendix XV (1) (l )( h )


71/694

FOREIGN EXCHANGE DEALJNO TICKETTfMMyCopir

NOSTnOM U k 7 1OSTnOM W buy fed h u g M M J OS So ^* *

Z668345/5ft i z

NUB J HO OUT miifliiflflBiWit ttrii

if01 tfj c J^ uj e-I

Tain RmllfQ OUTTO-Cltfnimlruettoiw

LK. ^flUJOUA.RotjeA RftflOr.^CL

w l ^ B m m mit g a o .

Curr.etfcO.

aa*

CAqkoir.cim. M t /

/

. V

/

* '. ** *

J*SI/v.


72/694

i - Ti' itr *Ti -t i i* iii n t"w"-sm- .Tir"

FOREIGN EXCHANGK DIALING TK5KITTrMiuiyCepy

NoemoMO f t


73/694

8FOREIGN EXCHANGE DEAUNG TICKET,nwyQopy w r n a v " / 'ri*.. ,Lm c z i i t

NCoTAOMC U oalcn3w|C

tones;buy Art

6683.47VtfUtMt " ".Jfi,

NOSTROOUT W w wWl Ml fMPCli6 T b - j dUfueIBnkar Tain Phoot Rtuar t.0,.

,'J) OUTTO-CtonrilnttucflontOUe,u.ft |

T .

J H P .J W .Jb^ SBtSiSisL

0UH.19J).

QlQh Cuff.OiQum

Mo* IMos-mo \ LCmRmutlBAeal ftrOwqua OllWmmJ

.^QJZ.


74/694

r - S E E S^ ^ ' ' W B I

H c m u J W a v - f i o s - >

AUTHORISATION M RCOUMSDNOSntOM08P08ITwt w m w on Mpmi

MidtMynurAC"ywarsc OUT'-*WtpHet-winntf- rapty

l. UtecwdHyourA/C

134839

fe,7Qf 9 1

SPECIAL W8TRUCTX3NS

IWw fOUTTO-Otonfibttnictiow

M m * Amount. -* FIIIUJBiWL

A! MaturityOUT TOCMnfs Maturity hNMnietani (tfraqdradandnoctoWMMNlN)ClL^ufl. I F O

i W f f

N08TB0 .CoMbmaUfiftCal ParCtaawi


76/694

Appendix XV (1) (2) (a)


77/694

MASON HAYES & CURRANS O L I C I T O R S

Office of the Inspectors ap pointed by theHigh Court to Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited,3 r d Floor,Trident House,Blackrock,Co. Dublin.

14 December 2001 YOURREF: OURREF : DM/PC

M A T T E R : Ansbacher

Dear S irs,W e act for M r. Roger B allagh, a partner in Kennedy M cGon agle Ballagh , Solicitors, 20Northumberland Road, Dublin 4 who has requested us to write to you in response to yourletter to him dated 23 Novem ber 2001.Having considered the "Inspectors Preliminary Conclusions" we are at a loss as to how theinformation (such as it is) or the reasoning (or lack of it) justifies the "PreliminaryConclusions" reached.W hat is clear is that Kennedy McG onagle Ballagh w as due a fee and it was paid. The partnerto whom it was paid gave Mr. Desmond Traynor the money and in due course caused it to bereturned to the partner in a mann er that divided it between himself and other partners.It is said the m onies, part of which were received by M r. Ballagh, came from Hamilton Rossor an entity unknown to our client (a matter you assert but do not sustain by any evidencedisclosed). This does not prove your conclusions even if true (a matter not conced ed o raccepted).In short your "Preliminary C onclusion s" that Mr. Ballagh was a client of Ansb acher are illfounded. This finding has been arrived at by you, without any evidence having been heard ortaken from our client wh ich q uite clearly is in breach of his constitutional rights and fairprocedure.No proof whatsoever has been produced to show that Mr. Ballagh was a client of Ansbacher.He is not, and never was, a client of Ansbacher and indeed had no know ledge of that Bank,nor the other companies mentioned. Even allowing for you r apparent broad interpretation of

6 Firawi l l iam Square, D ubl in 2, Ireland, DX I1 Dubl in, Tel +35 3 1 61 4 5000 , Fax +353 J 61 4 5001 , www.m hc.ie, K-mail mai [email protected] R, Curran. Maeve Hayes, Anthony Burke, Declan Moylan, Lorcan Ruckley, F.mer Gilvarrv, Paul J. G. Egan, Oilman P. Curran, Nora I.arkin,Declan Curran. Richard A. Woulfe, Kevin Hoy, Declan Black, l.iani Brazil, Aillihe Gilvarry, John Kettle, David O'Donnell, Niall Michel, John Kehoe, Peter

Si'iiinr Assoi'Uiti's Niamli Clarke, Matthew Wales, \lajella Dolan, Gillian McNamara, Shane MacSweeney, Susan RyanCm


78/694

"client", this word qu ite clearly has a specific meaning as defined in all the standarddictionaries and under no ne of these definitions can Mr. Ballagh b e held to b e a "client".Therefore we require your confirmation by return that no such conclusion will appear in yourReport.Yours faithfully,

/MASON HAYES & CURRAN


79/694

Appendix XV (1) (2) (b)


80/694

MASON HAYES & CURRANS O L I C I T O R S

Office of the Inspectors app ointed by theHigh Court to Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited,3 r d Floor, , ^Trident House, "Blackrock,Co. Dublin.

15 January 2002 YOURREF: OURREF : D M / P C

M A T T E R : Ansbacher

Dear Sirs,We write on behalf of Mr. Roger Ballagh.Thank you for your letter of 21 December 2001 in response to ours of 14 December 2001.Your refusal to amend any part of your preliminary conclusion is entirely unaccep table to ourclient who is outraged by it.Our client understands the pressures upon you to produce a final report. How ever w e must,with respect, suggest that the treatment afforded our client is grossly unfair and does notvindicate his rights in any respect.Our client has never been called to give evidence before you and so far as we are aware thesole commun ication he has been involved in with you is his letter of the 16TH March 2001written in response to a request by you. The relevant portion of that letter is to be seen inparagraph n umb er 2 in which the following is said:-

"Also in 1993 a fee paid by a U.K. c lient o f the F i rm was lodged by the partner whoacted for this client with the late J.D. Traynor and this fee was subsequently paid tothe partners including me through Kentford Securit ies Limited. The partner whohandled this matter was the late Liam D. McGonagle who was a personal friend ofthe late J.D. Traynor. The U.K. client was not a client of the C ompany and did notavai l o f any of the serv ices provided by the Company. I believe Mr. Traynor merelyfacilitated my late partner Liam D. McGonagle and neither he nor the C ompany norKentford Securities Limited were paid a fee for this service".

6 Fi tzwil l inm S quare, Du bl in 2, Ireland, DX 11 Du bl in, Tel +3 53 1 614 5000 , Fax +353 1 61 4 5001 , www.nihc. ie, E-mai l mni [email protected] R. Curran, Maeve Hayes, Anthony Burke, Declan Movlan, Lurc.ni Buckle)', limer Gilvarry, Paul J. G. Kuan, Column I'. Curran, Nora LarkinDeclan Curran, Riclianl A. Woulfc, Kevin Hoy, Declan Black, Liam Brazil, AilMie Gilvarry. John Kettle, David O'Donnell, Niall Michel, John Kelioe, Percr

Senior Associates Niainh Clarke, Matthew Wales, Majella Dolan. Gillian McNamara, Shane MacSweeney, Susan Ryan CarroCoiisiilt.mts A. Dcrmot Mason, Conal Clancv. Rorv I.. Euan in B.if
http://www.nihc.ie/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.nihc.ie/


81/694

Your preliminary conclusion is premised upon a narrative that states as follows:-

"Mr. Michael O'Shea, Mr. Roger P. Ballagh and Mr. Terence D. E. Dixon areSolicitors in the firm of Kennedy McGonagle Ballagh, 20 Northumberland Road,Dublin 4. Their involvement in Ansbacher arose out o f their late partner's (Mr. LiamMcGonagle) long-term involvement in offshore banking.During 1992, fees earned by the firm were deposited, at the suggestion of Mr.McGonagle, with Mr. Desmond Traynor and ended up in an Ansbacher account. Thesu m involved was 40,000 approximately. The money was left o n d e po sit o ffsho re fo rsome t ime and then shared out among the partners. The payments were made from aHamilton Ross account in Ansbacher. The IIB dealing tickets show that Mr. Ballaghreceived over 1R11,530.00, Mr. O'Shea and Mr. Dixon received IR6,243.00 eachand the firm received IR4,877.00 and a company controlled by the late Mr. LiamMcGonagle stg6,701.00.All the partners who shared in that fund were thus clients of Ansbacher. TheInspectors' formal decision on the late Mr. McGonagle is to be found elsewhere in thereport".

It is said that the preliminary conclusion, w hich you stand by, is:"Mr. Michael J. O'Shea, Mr. Roger Ballagh and Mr. Terence Dixon were clients of

Ansbacher".The evidence supporting your conclusions is said to be a statement by Mr. Michael O'Shea,evidence given by Mr. Michael O'Shea, the exhibits produced at that hearing (by you) andthe seven further exhibits set out.Your "Preliminary Conclusions"Some Preliminary PointsW e can find nowh ere in the transcript of Mr. O'S hea any suggestion that he was asked torepresent or indicated that he represented our client Mr. B allagh.On page 10 of the transcript we find, how ever, that Inspector O'Le ary stated:

"We must identify the client of the company we are investigating... Ansbacher".We note in the "foreign exchange dealing ticket (document 5)" appended to your preliminaryconclusion, it is expressly stated that the customer is "Hamilton Ross".What Mr. Ballagh has said, which is uncontradicted by any evidence that we have seen, isthat the fee paid in 1993, by a client of Kennedy M cGon agle Ballagh, was subsequentlydivided among the partners including Mr. Ballagh. He m ade it clear that the matter was


82/694

I thandled by Liam D . McG onagle. He m ade the point, from information he received after theevent, for the purpo se of attempting to respond to your queries, that the fee was received inthe manner detailed.In the circumstances, w e m ight respectfully suggest that a fair analysis of this transaction, if itis one that has any part to play in your report, w ould be as follows:

"In 1993 Mr. Roger Ballagh, in his capacity as a partner in his Solicitors' practice,received par t o f a fee earned by one o f h is fellow partners Mr. Liam McGonagle. Mr.McGonagle took responsibility for recovering the fee from the partnership's clientand making the arrangements for its distribution among his fellow partners.It now transpires that the payment to Mr. Ballagh was effected through a companycalled Kentford Securities Limited. It now appears that the payment in question waseffected by Hamilton Ross drawing on a bank account maintained with another bank(possibly Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited).Mr. Ballagh was not party to the arrangements that Mr. McGonagle put in place.Whilst it is clear that Mr. Ballagh received a payment through Kentford SecuritiesLimited we have not been able to establish whether he was a client of Ansbacher".

We do not believe that there can be any objection to presenting your conclusion in thatmanner. We say this, subject always to you explaining the matters we refer to above.W e have to say that we are gravely concerned by yo ur refusal to engage in any meaningfuldialogue in relation to your preliminary con clusions. As a matter of common sense, it is notfair. As a matter of law, it is also a denial of our clien t's right to fair procedures. The factthat you have written to our client clearly establishes that:-(a) your conclusion constitutes "a finding or inference adverse to Mr. Ballagh's interests,good name and/or reputation";(b) Mr. Ballagh has the right to be:

(i) informed in writing of the proposed finding or inference(ii) informed of the evidence which is thought to justify the proposed finding orinference(iii) afforded the opportunity to prepare a written reply to the proposed finding orinference(iv) afforded, by way of further examination on oath, an opportunity to introducerebutting evidence and/or to address the Inspectors(v) afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the relevant witnesses.

In circumstances w here you hav e simply failed to engage on the case made b y Mr. Ballaghconcerning the suggestion he should be described as a "cl ient of Ansbacher" it is incumbent


83/694

on us, for the purpo ses of protecting his interest, good name and reputation, to take thismatter further.Please note that we require the following:-1. The opportunity of producing evidence that in relation to the distribution of the fee,Mr. Ballagh had no kno wledge of the arrangements being pu t in place by Mr.McGonagle and absolutely no knowledge that the monies that he received had, at anytime (if that be the case, a m atter we do not accept that you ha ve eviden ce of) b eenretained in an Ansbacher account.2. We also require that we be entitled to address you. Clearly, the procedures youyourself h ave ado pted provide for the right to have an interplay of views between

yourselves and persons such as Mr. Ballagh for the purposes of permitting him toappropriately vindicate his interest, good nam e and repu tation.In the event that we cannot m ake som e headway in dealing w ith you r preliminary conclusion,either by following our procedural rights as identified above, or through some other means,our client wishes the opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses as you have who can giverelevant evidence that the monies in question were ever in an Ansbacher account. Perhapsyou could identify these witnesses and indicate when they will be made available for cross-examination and deliver a transcript of the evidence they have given.W e note in your procedures that where issues arise between any person and your good selves,a procedure of seeking directions from the High Court to resolve issues is referred to. Shouldwe fail to reach an accom mod ation in relation to the provisions of your report to which w erefer, we reserve ou r right to be the subject m atter of such application.You w ill be able to appreciate the impossible position M r. Ballagh finds himself in. He is asolicitor and an Officer of the High Court. He has received a share in a fee du e to a legalpractice of which he was a partner. In circumstances of which he knows nothing it is allegedthat part of this money may have been held in an account operated by Ansbacher. W e haveto say, with the greatest respect, that to see him designated as "a c lient of Ansbacher" withthe damage to his interests, good name and reputation that such a designation will bring, isunfair, unjustified, unnecessary and irrational.In relation to the monies paid to Mr. Ballagh, he objects to being dealt with in a section ofyour report that also deals with other persons.Finally, it seems to us a brief meeting between the representatives of yourselves (or b etterstill yourselves) and this office could go a very long w ay to defusing what on the face of it ,appears to be a confrontation that is entirely unnecessary. Mr. Ballagh has no problemaccepting that he received the paym ent in question. His objection is to being called a clientof Ansbacher, an institution the services of which he never know ingly utilised, or wished toutilise personally or for any client.


84/694

We assume that pending your response to this letter, no report will be published containingthe sections concerning Mr. Ballagh. If this is not the case please tell us and we will take thenecessary action elsew here.Yours faithfully,

A f W A ^ v {/ o u t ,* &rMASON HAYES & CURRAN


85/694

Appendix XV (2) Mrs Frances Elizabeth Barrett1. Evidence relied upon by the Inspectors in arriving at the conclusion relating toMrs F rances Elizabeth B arrett.

a) Extract of clients provided by Padraig Collery.b) Letter of 19 February 1990 from JD Traynor to Guinness and Mahon.c) Letter of 4 September 1990from JD Traynor to Guinness and Mahon.d) Letter of 8 May 1995 from DP Collery to Mrs F rances Barrett.e) Letter of 9 October 1995 from DP C ollery to Frances Barrett.


86/694



87/694


88/694



89/694

't

/ V

V-O V,

V.'.'iI

Ansbacher Limited^Croup

Please reply to:42 RtzwQliam Square,Dublin 27M: 765I4V7S306JRue 612035

N. Lanigan-O'Keeffe, Esq.,Managing Director,Guinness a Mahon Limited,17 College Green,Dublin 2.

P.O. Box 887, Gnnd Cxymn, BridA Vat IndiaPhone (809)949-4653/4TlaaCP430SFui (809) 949-7946(809) 949*3267

19th February, 1990.

Dear Martin,Prom time to time over the past number of years Guinness aMahon Dublin have made arrangements with Guinness Mahon & Co.London so that Mrs. Frances Barrett may call to collect cash.The usual procedure has been that Guinness A Mahon send aletter to Mrs. Barrett authorising her to collect the moneyand she brings this with her when she calls in to GuinnessMahon & Co. She invariably rings G.M. t o. in advance ofcalling to arrange a suitable day and time but it would be no/"n tm harm to remind her to do so. She usually asks for BrendaBartlett but if it should be anyone else dealing with thematter perhaps you could let her know.I would be grateful if you could put these arrangements in handfor her to call and collect Stg.10,000.00. She is not*surejust when she will be able to travel to London but once shereceives your letter she will make plans.The debit should be to the Account of Colinas Investments.Mrs.Barrett's address is:

The Laurels,Clifford Chambers, jQ/c.Stratford-upon-Avon, '\/C . r Jb ,

a ! h i r i c v 3 7 8 H XYours sincerely,

J.D. Traynor.


90/694

Appendix XV (2) (1) (c)


91/694

... 4 rwww ivy*/ 42 Ficrwflliam Square,Dublin 2." '' Tisb 765144/763065Fax: 612035M. David Humphries, Esq.,Senior Manager - Operations,Guinness * Mahon Limited,17 College Green,DOBLIN 2.

PhoMC (U) MMU3/4TtfacCPtiOSRue (KM) 9-7M(109) 949-32674th September, 1

J MDear David,From time to time Guinness 1 Mahon.with Guinness Mahon A Co. London sonay call to collect cash.

ti has made arrangementsit Mrs. Frances BarrettThe usual procedure has been thaY Guinness 1 Mahon send a letterto Mrs. Barrett authorising her/to collect the money and shebrings this with her when she >6alls in to Guinness Mahon & Co.a Ob. in advance of calling to arrangebut/it would be no harm to remind her to. usually asks for Brenda Bartlettelse perhaps you could let her know.She invariably rings G.M.a suitable day and timedo so in the letter,but if it should be anyiI would be gratefulso that she may collelarge denomination

if jou could put these arrangements in handStg.7,50Q in cash and Stg.7,500 inling Travellers Cheques.As soon as she receives your letter she will make arrangementsto travel to London and as she is anxious to do this as soon aspossible I would appreciate if you could write to her withoutdelay.The debit shooNo.12686001. Ld be to Coral Beef Securities Limited AccountMrs. Barrettrs address is:

Yours sincerely,

The Laurels,Clifford Chambers,Stratford-upon-Avon,Warwickshire CV37 BHXEngland.


92/694

Appendix XV (2) (1) (d)


93/694

winstavxbn sranrr,10, INNS COURT,DUBLIN S.UX.N0.01-47W331FAX NO. 01-4791750

8th May. 1995.ftfo Fiances BanalTheLaurels,CSffbrd Chambers,Stratford Upon Avon,WarwkJcdriwi CB378HX

Dear Mrs. Barrett,TImdeposit mature on 3rd Ma^b Ae of tg6S5/92JS. Please i n d odosed scheduleibowing the rollover details.The aum ofStg10,081.55win be erwBtedto d account ofCoral Reefin Guinness Mahon&Company limited, Londoa. I also cnclote * t a t e m e n t tor that accouatKind regards.Yours sinccrdy,


94/694


95/694

18 INNS comer,WRDETAVVSN STREET,DUBLIN 1 TELEPHONE NO. 01-793231FACSIMILENO. 01-4791750

i ' '9th October, 199S.

The Laurels,CUSbrd flmifltmStratford Upon Avon,Warwickshire, CB37,8HX.Dear Mrs. Barrett, . . . " .Th e deposit matured on 4th October, in the sum ofBTQS7S, 467.47. Pleasefind endosedschedule showing the rolloverdetails.The sum of SRCbE3.329.47 will be crec&ted to the account of Cora! Reef in Guinness Mahon &Co. Limited, London. Kind regards,Yours sincerely,

D.K3&IXEK.Y

End:


96/694


97/694

Appendix XV (3) Mr John Barrett1. Evidence relied upon by the Inspectors in arriving at the conclusion relating to MrJohn B arrett.

a) Internal Guinness and Mahon memo of 4 May 1983from JD Traynor to PO'Dwyer.b) Letter of 4 May 1983 from JD Traynor to Mr John Barrett.c) Letter of 4 May 1983from Guinness and Mahon to M rs BrendaFinnimore, Guinness Mahon & Co. Ltd.d) Letter of 7 October 1987from JD Traynor to Guinness and Mahon.


98/694


99/694

J . D . T . t o P . O ' P .i o v j r

4tb May, 1083.

A t ta c h e d h e r e t o a r e co p i e s o f l a t t i r s w h ich I h ave '. ' a t tp . John B a r r e t t u d I n t . r nu re ea B a r r e t t. . * ;. I h a v ? .s e n t ,c o p i e s t o B ra nda U n n l a o r e an d w o u ld-W *. g r a t e f t i l i f ; yo u w ould ap ea k to h er t o c l e a r , t e ll ln j i rher "to "debit ns. ' ."... l a t a r n w o uld yo a n o te t o d e bi t t h e 7,0 0 0 t ois

Co llna a Xaweatatmta Limited and the 10.000 to 'G.M.C.T. "8,2" D e p o s i t .

J1W/AJW

JDT/AJtf

Tnm: Uw,aM>.TWM 1M1I1W. >. BuiI. AtAM. Ctn.HH w0WHK l CO'IIW Gut.BmHi a. OAHtt Wflldailt JX. LM O.T.QtKMf.O. Rmw. iMivi." ' :I01U. liiuhlhm j. n o t T>ww I0imCmiinrt. MmiH I. O'toiw Otli8. tuCVm.gmamcj. WiOawMltMrawylj Ji*rtlU*?t. WcMfi


100/694



101/694

w G t M8ANKHRS GUINNESS+MAHON LTD17 Cslba* Oftmt OuMn I P.O. Box S5A Ttl: 71M44 (t 7 Lin>PKBSOMAL 4th May, 1983John Barrett, Esq34 Monckton CourtAddison Road,

LOMPOH. W14 8Wf.

Dear JohnThis is to cocJin* that I have made arrangsasntswith Mrs. Brenda Ficniaore of Guinness Mahon b Co. Ltd.,32 St. Mary at Hill, London XC3P 3AJ, to provide you with10,000 Sterling in cash. Will you please sake sure thatyou give her 24 hours' notice by ringing her at (01) 623 9333telling her what va? 70U would like the cash.She will glva you the cash in exchange for thislatter.Kindest regards

Tours sincerely

J.D. Traynor

c.c. Mrs. B. Finninore

JDT/AJWn

lm>l>NiaMi)iCi


102/694

Appendix XV (3) (1) (c)


103/694

- i ?

I/* J. Guinness Hahon ft CM . Ltd.' DATE 4th May, 1983.

TfST;Attent ion; Mrs. Brandt Ffnnfura(a) Please arrange to debit our account 5{g. 11,000,00 and pay

sane to Hrs. Frances Barrett.\ ( t ) Please arrange to debft our account Stg. 70,000 and payA to John Barrett.^ , J- D. Traynor has written to the above and has forwarded conyr lette rs to you.

tony thanks.Pat 0' ^

AUTHOHISEH BY:DEBIT:COST:PILE:

* / < >

"JDT/AJW

JDT/AJTf

mwff lOm. e V* 6%*waB >w 0#w*r r r r


104/694


105/694

lOLovflfPsnibrotoStfMtOuMrtTataprow |01)783069J. 0. Tiynor

7th October, 198717 College GreeDUBLIN 2.

Dear Sirs,Xany thanks for letting me have ths envelopecontaining John Barrett's old Will from my dossier.Receipt enclosed herewith.I also enclose envelope marked 'John BarrettLetter cf Wishes' and would be grateful if you couldput this in my dossier with the envelope marked'John 3arrett - Will'.Xany thanks.

Yours faithfully.


106/694


107/694

Appendix XV (4) Mr Jesus Barrios & Mrs Maria Barrios1. Evidence relied upon by the Inspectors in arriving at the conclusion relating to Mr

Jesus Barrios & M rs Maria Barrios.a) Mortage Deed of 20 December 1984.b) Guinness and Mahon Credit Comm ittee Memorandum of 24 April 1985.c) Guinness and Mahon Credit Comm ittee Memorandum of 12 November1986.d) Letter of 4 August, 1987 from Mike Shield of GMCT to Guinness andMahon.e) Letter of 24 April 1985 from P O'D of Guinness and Mahon to MikeShields of GMCT.f) Telex of 18 December 1985 from GMCT to Guinness and M ahon.g) Telex of 18 December 1985 from Guinness and Mahon to G MCT.h) Telex of 19 December 1985 from Guinness and Mahon to GM CT.i) Extract of evidence of Sandra Kells to Moriarty Tribunal 17 February

2000.


108/694



109/694

x m tC 26 AX v 8 4 R 3 8 7 8 2 8 . ^* 2 i 559Jfllortgag? Sfffc_ Sinn mnrtiinijrDrrh. medr andnii ii ''>'' December . >i>84b>. JESUS L. BARRIOS and MARIA C. BARRIOS, his wifehereinaftercalled th Mortgagor, which term shall inclods Um heire. legal repreaaotaUvea. successors lad assigns af the said Mortgagor wherever the c*o requirv* or admits.>o GUINNESS and MAHON LIMITEDhereinafter called the Mortgagee. which term (hall include Uu hein, legal representatives, successor* End assigns. of the mid Mortgagee whereverllw rraju.rrx or admite.SJillirnarll[: Tlml fur .liven. >l valuable rMeAfrrallueK. awl aim inwwhUtoIuhiof llw* hkiiitk"!'mihii imiuil in tin- j>rr>' Mr .W.-.!kvrvwith Iwn'iimfWr tlturrilwii. llw suid Murtgagnr tltiea hereby grant. bargain, Mil elkm. remise. rvlinue.convey and nuifirm mil..III.- aaiil Miirliaw-r^tawm and mau'icna. all lh* cm-tain piece. parcel or tract of land, of which the wsB in law aa In squlty af the said M ortgagor in and to the same and every perl and parcel (hen -of unto

Documents

Ansbacher Cayman Report Appendix Volume 3