O'Brien may have played 'ring-a-rosie'

Crucial evidence was given to the Moriarty tribunal this week which goes to the heart of testimony already given by multi-millionaire businessman Mr Denis O'Brien.

At issue, as tribunal counsel Mr Jerry Healy put it on Thursday, is Mr O'Brien's credibility. The evidence this week concerned a $50,000 donation from Telenor/ Esat Digifone to Fine Gael, but Mr O'Brien's credibility is an issue of relevance to the whole module covering him, Esat Digifone and former Fine Gael minister Mr Michael Lowry.

Mr O'Brien has said in evidence that he refused an approach from the late David Austin in 1995 for a political donation to Fine Gael. It was too close to the announcement that Esat Digifone had won the second mobile phone licence, Mr O'Brien said. However, he said, he did subsequently suggest to his partners in Digifone, Norwegian company Telenor, that they might make a contribution.

Telenor contributed $50,000. On Mr Austin's instructions, the money was sent to an offshore account in his name. The money was sent on foot of an invoice from Mr Austin which referred to "consultancy services". Digifone later reimbursed Telenor.

Mr O'Brien has said the reimbursement came about because Telenor "made" Digifone do it. This happened during extremely intense shareholders' agreement negotiations in April/May 1996.

The Telenor executives who were involved are at loggerheads with Mr O'Brien. They say he asked them to make the donation on behalf of Digifone and that it was always the case that the money would be refunded. Telenor advanced the money for reasons of confidentiality.

On Friday, June 1st, 2001, Mr O'Brien told the tribunal he knew nothing about Digifone being invoiced by Telenor for the $50,000 until "much, much later", i.e., after the invoices were issued. He learned some time before the shareholders' negotiations in May 1996, "and even then this ring-a-rosie of different invoices coming in and out, I wasn't aware of".

On Thursday, Mr Per Simonsen, Digifone project manager at the time, said he received telephone calls from Mr O'Brien in relation to the invoices in December 1995 and January 1996. In effect, his evidence is that Mr O'Brien was involved in the "ring-a-rosie".

Mr Austin invoiced Telenor in December 1995 and the invoice was approved for payment. Mr Simonsen was instructed to issue an invoice to Digifone for the same amount. In the run-up to Christmas 1995 he received a call from Mr O'Brien who, Mr Simonsen said, was concerned that Mr Austin's name might appear on the invoice being sent to Digifone. It was, Mr Simonsen said, unusual for Mr O'Brien himself to contact him about an inter-company financial matter.

Mr Simonsen issued instructions that the invoice be issued without Mr Austin's name on it. When he returned from work in Oslo after Christmas Mr Simonsen was shown a copy of the invoice just as it was being faxed. Mr Austin's name was on it.

He rushed to the photocopier but it was too late. He immediately phoned someone in the Digifone offices in Dublin and told him or her to shred the document just sent.

A new invoice was then sent, without Mr Austin's name on it. Later in January 1996 Mr O'Brien again contacted him. This time he wanted a new invoice issued in Irish pounds and not US dollars.

He also wanted Mr Simonsen to wait four to six weeks before doing so. Mr Simonsen cancelled the second invoice and, in time, sent the third.

The import of Mr Simonsen's evidence is that it would indicate that Mr O'Brien, at a time when he was under great pressure to get the Digifone infrastructure in place, orchestrated part of the "ring-a-rosie" of invoices and, therefore, knew that Telenor believed the political donation was given on behalf of Digifone and not Telenor. Either Mr O'Brien is correct or Mr Simonsen, and a number of his colleagues, are correct.

Mr O'Brien has yet to respond to Mr Simonsen's evidence.