Tribunal chairman describes Hynes evidence as ‘confusing’

The chairman of a chartered accountants disciplinary tribunal has repeated his view that he finds the evidence of Wexford accountant Alan Hynes confusing in relation to the treatment of €3.1 million in investors' funds.

The tribunal has resumed today having last sat on April 12th, when chairman JP McDowell asked Mr Hynes to set out in writing what he was saying had happened to the money.

The money was put into Tuskar Asset Management plc (Tam), a property investment and development business, now in liquidation, which was established by Mr Hynes near the end of the property boom. A number of previous property ventures, which involved investors, were subsumed into Tam following its establishment.

Tam liquidator Neil Hughes, has shown the tribunal a list of eleven investors who put a total of €3.1 million into Tam, and whose money, he said, did not reach the company.

In April, Mr McDowell asked that Mr Hynes draft a document to address the issue. Mr Hynes has drafted the document, which was shared with Mr Hughes during the adjournment, and which Mr Hughes has commented on in a response given to the tribunal.

Today counsel for Mr Hynes, Alan Cormack, began to take his client through his client's document. Mr Hynes said the document "has reconciled the Tam plc investors' funds entirely." Mr Cormack said that as far as his client was concerned, there were no shareholder funds missing at all.

However Mr Hynes also said he had not had access to all the information he required, as he did not have access to the client accounts of Seamus Maguire & Co, solicitors, the law firm used by Tam. A number of the investor payments went into the client accounts of the law firm.

Mr McDowell said on a number of occasions that Mr Hynes’ evidence was not clear. He said Mr Hynes was on the one hand saying it was clear that no funds were missing, and on the other hand seemed to be suggesting “that he doesn’t actually know”.

The accountant was questioned by the three-member disciplinary tribunal about a €200,000 cash lodgment to Tam made by Alan and Noreen Properties, a trade name used by Mr Hynes and his wife, in August 2007. The lodgment formed part of Mr Hynes explanation for what had happened to the €3.1 million.

When asked for the name of the investor for whom this lodgment was made, Mr Hynes said he did not “tag” individual amounts. Money had been “pooled” but the investors’ money was fully matched by the shares in Tam that had been issued to them. He told tribunal member PJ Connolly that he did not keep accounts for Alan and Noreen Properties, which was a name he and his wife used in dealings they had with Tam. These dealings included meeting costs on certain occasions which made them creditors of the projects the investors were investing in.

Tribunal member Margaret Elliot said it would be considered best practice if lodgments and issued shares were “specifically linked”.

Mr McDowell said that when the tribunal had “drilled down” into Mr Hynes evidence, it found that he could not say which investor the €200,000 came from, or why it had been paid into Tam. Ms Elliot said that being able to identify funds in this way was a “primary obligation”.

The tribunal continues.