Rattled nerves act as catalyst for disclosure

Analysis: The latest statement from a former executive director of AIB adds further to the mystery of what was going on within AIB Investment Managers (AIBIM) in the period from 1989 to 1996.

According to Mr Gerry Scanlan, chief executive of AIB from 1985 to 1994, money he and his wife invested with AIBIM during this period was moved from a "taxed fund" managed by AIBIM, to the British Virgin Islands company Faldor, without their knowledge.

This "resulted in the generation of an unexpected tax liability".

In 1996, the funds invested by the Mr and Mrs Scanlan were paid out to them by AIBIM. The former top banker noticed nothing that made him suspect that the funds which he received were anything other than an after-tax return.

This scenario means that someone in AIBIM decided to move his or her chief executive's funds offshore, into a non-tax compliant structure, without the chief executive being informed. Odd behaviour, to put it mildly.

However, in his statement issued to The Irish Times on Sunday, Mr Roy Douglas, Mr Scanlan's former boardroom colleague, said that any improper practices involving his, Mr Douglas's AIBIM funds occurred without his knowledge or consent.

There were three other executive directors with an interest in the Faldor fund, one of whom has since died. We have yet to hear from the remaining two.

AIB, in its statement last week about this whole affair, gave the impression that it had discovered an offshore fund set up by the executives and which had been managed by AIBIM.

Mr Douglas has said he was invited to invest with AIBIM at the time he was elevated to the position of group general manager. It was a perk operated by the bank for its senior executives, he believed. He said he made his investment in 1989, the year Faldor was set up and a time when Mr Scanlan was group chief executive.

Mr Scanlan, presumably, was in a position to know what perks were available for the bank's senior management, but his statement yesterday was silent on the matter.

He said nothing as to how he and his wife came to invest funds with AIBIM.

We have been told that Mr Douglas approached the Revenue Commissioners in 2003 to clear up a tax debt he had arising from an offshore trust - a trust to which he'd moved funds after he'd taken them out of AIBIM.

It was after he approached AIBIM while organising his disclosure, and informed AIB that he had been in contact with the Revenue, that AIB first approached the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority (IFSRA). The Revenue was also informed.

Mr Douglas approached AIB in August 2003 and AIB approached IFSRA in September 2003. The Revenue will not say when exactly it was informed that there were issues of concern at AIBIM.

Yesterday the Revenue Commissioners announced that a full investigation involving its investigations and prosecutions division is now under way. Officers from its large cases division are involved.

It would not say when the investigation began but, if it began soon after this affair was brought to its attention, then it is curious that it is only being mentioned now.

The Revenue inquiry will involve a full examination of the books and records of AIBIM and will not be restricted to the Faldor account or that of the other five, mostly unnamed, executives who had "tax issues" arising from investments managed for them by AIBIM.

In other words, clients of AIBIM of recent decades who have "tax issues", have reason to be concerned.

Amazingly, another day has passed without the public being told what exactly were the tax issues that arose in relation to Faldor and the five executives, and what exactly lies behind the €800,000 liability the bank says it identified arising from matters to do with AIBIM but not the Faldor account.

Also, it has now been confirmed that the bank and IFSRA, which knew about this scandal since September 2003, conducted an inquiry but that this inquiry did not go back beyond 1989, the year the Faldor account was set up.

In fact, examination of all that is known to date about this affair lends itself to concerns that the public might never have been told any of this, and the Revenue Commissioners might never have initiated a full-blown investigation into AIBIM, if nerves had not been rattled by the leaks two weeks ago concerning overcharging by AIB and the ensuing sense of public anger.