Quinn says steps taken 'unethical', not illegal

A NEPHEW of bankrupt businessman Seán Quinn has denied being the “mastermind” of a strategy to put multimillion-euro assets of the Quinn family beyond the reach of Anglo Irish Bank but agreed steps taken were “wrong and unethical”, although he did not believe they breached Russian law.

Peter Darragh Quinn also told the High Court yesterday he had “no clue” about an allegedly false and contrived arbitration award of $100 million made in June 2011 against a Russian company of which he was general director, in favour of an offshore shelf company, Belize-registered Galfis Overseas Ltd, alleged by Anglo to be controlled by Quinn parties.

Anglo, now Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, has alleged the award, made just weeks before the bank secured court orders restraining dissipation of assets valued up to €500 million in the Quinn International Property Group (IPG), was contrived as part of a strategy to strip assets worth more than $145 million from the Russian company, Finansstroy.

Mr Quinn agreed it was “extraordinary” that the $100 million claim by Galfis was not disputed by Finansstroy and that it had said it did not want to attend the arbitration procedure. He was unaware of the claim until he saw documents in this case, he said. It was remiss of him not to be aware and that was “an oversight”.

Mr Quinn also denied suggestions Galfis was being set up for him at his request during a one-day trip by him to Dubai in June 20th, 2011, as part of the alleged asset-stripping strategy and not, as he contends, at the request of Russian lawyers for the benefit of a former Ukrainian railway worker, Yaroslav Gurnyak.

He made the trip in the space of a day to Dubai to explore putting any new business ventures involving the Quinn family into a trust structure, he said.

The cross-examination of Mr Quinn, general manager of international property assets held by the Quinn group from 2009, continued yesterday before Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne in the hearing of the bank’s application for orders for attachment and committal against him, Seán Quinn snr and Seán Quinn jnr for alleged contempt.

The bank contends the three breached court orders of June and July 2011 restraining dissipation of assets in the IPG. They deny those claims.

Among the claims against Peter Quinn is that he breached the orders via his alleged participation in the assignment of loans totalling some €163 million for nominal consideration to Galfis on or after July 20th, 2011. It is also alleged that he and Seán Quinn snr deliberately backdated assignments so it would appear they occurred on April 4th, 2011.

Mr Quinn told Paul Gallagher SC, for the bank, yesterday that arising from his concern to protect assets of the Quinn family, he obtained advice from a major law firm, CMS Russia, but used other lawyers to effect transfers of shareholdings in Quinn companies.

He denied he did this because some of the actions engaged in were illegal but agreed he believed CMS would have been “reluctant” to get involved and would “not have approved”.

He went to another lawyer about various measures because he was cheaper and a relatively simple transaction was involved, he added.

Mr Quinn also said Seán Quinn snr had never discussed Galfis matters with him. His uncle, when signing assignments of valuable loans to Mr Gurnyak, had “put his faith in me” and was “not big into detail”.

The hearing continues today.