The Belfast jury in the trial of former financier Mr Finbarr Ross was told yesterday that "his blissful ignorance" was not worthy of belief. In final submissions Crown counsel Mr Gary McCrudden argued that the evidence in the case suggested it was inconceivable that Mr Ross did not know his Gibraltar-based company, International Investments, was hopelessly insolvent in 1983. Mr Ross (54), who was extradited from the US to stand trial, is alleged to have taken investments from people in Northern Ireland in 1983-84 knowing IIL was bankrupt.

Mr Ross also denies 36 charges of false accounting in that he furnished accounts to investors in December 1983, knowing the amounts credited to them were not available for payment.

Mr McCrudden rejected Mr Ross's claim that no one had ever told him there were cash flow problems. He added that given Mr Ross's business acumen and the fact that IIL was his company, it was inconceivable that he did not know the company's position before a meeting of investors at the Stormont Hotel in Belfast in December 1983.

He continued: "In order to put off the evil day the statements of account were sent out, accurate in themselves, but misleading and dishonest because they were calculated to create calm as far as investors were concerned."

In his final submissions Mr Arthur Harvey QC, defending, reminded the jury that the first principle was the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proving the guilt of the accused rested on the prosecution. It was not for the defendant to prove anything. "If you feel there is a reasonable possibility he could be telling the truth you have to acquit him."

And he told the jury to bear in mind that the events described went back more than 16 years, a delay which was a significant disadvantage to anyone in meeting the charges against him. Referring to the liquidation of the company, Mr Harvey said the liquidator had not done any of the work himself regarding the realisation of assets in the Republic or in the US. And the Irish agent was not called to give evidence as to the realisation of the Irish assets.

"What has happened in this case is because of the non-appearance of witnesses you have been denied the facts upon which you can do your job. That is the recurrent theme of this case," he told the jury.

The defence reminded the jury that Mr Ross had told them he had been asked by Mr Ronnie Vincent, a director in the company, to sign over his beneficial interest to him (Mr Vincent) in February 1984. "Mr Vincent, an accountant, decided to become the beneficial owner on the basis that the company was not insolvent and could be restructured.

"It may have been insolvent in the sense that it could not meet its day-to-day debts, but he believed there were sufficient assets to enable the company to be restructured. It is monstrous to suggest there was not any money in IIL, and even more monstrous that the people charged with realising these assets are not here to give an explanation," Mr Harvey told the jury.

The case continues today.