Mr Michael Lowry had not read the terms of reference of the Moriarty Tribunal when he made disclosures of his financial affairs to the inquiry, it heard today.
Mr Lowry said his advisors had not been made aware of an Isle of Man account held in the Irish Nationwide in which a controversial £147,000 payment from the FG fundraiser Mr David Austin had been lodged.
The account was set up in late 1996 and closed in February 1997. He said he did not regard the account as relevant because it was a "legitimate transaction" that had been "done and dusted".
An exerpt from the terms of reference were read out at the tribunal today in which it stated: "... whether any substantial payments were made directly or indirectly to Mr Michael Lowry... during any period in which he held public office in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that the motive for making the payment was connected with any public office held by him...".
The terms referred to a number of accounts - both in Ireland and off-shore - held by Mr Lowry.
Mr Jerry Healy SC for the tribunal said the terms of reference required that Mr Lowry’s advisers be intstructed to assist in making full disclosure.
Mr Domnaill O’Donnell for Mr Lowry interjected to say that there should be no suggestion that Mr Lowry’s advisers were involved in any percieved concealment of Mr Lowry’s affairs.
The Chairman Mr Justice Moriarty said there was no suggestion that any "cloud" hung over Mr Lowry’s advisers.
Mr Lowry said the £147,000 payment was a loan and the money had been repaid with interest and he therefore considered it not to be of interest to the tribunal.
He said he subsequently disclosed the information to the Moriarty Tribunal in April of this year when he considered it relevant. "I accept it should have been made earlier," he said.
He rejected Mr Healy's suggestion that his advisors and the Tribunal were not told of the £147,000 because Mr Lowry did not want the relationship he had with Mr Austin revealed.
He also refuted the suggestion that the handwritten contract and letter acknowledging return of the £147,000 with interest could have been drawn after the transaction ion order to give the payment an appearacnce of legitimacy.