The garda leading investigations into money laundering told the High Court yesterday that Mr John Gilligan was a very dangerous criminal who would stop at nothing to frustrate Garda attempts to get evidence of his crimes. Det Insp Terry McGinn told Mr Justice Kinlen that Mr Gilligan had contacts with drugs and criminal activity, had access to unlawful firearms and would do whatever he could to prevent her obtaining evidence.
Insp McGinn was giving State evidence in an action taken by Mr Tony Hanahoe and his brothers, who practise under the title of Michael E Hanahoe and Co. The solicitors' firm wants an order quashing the decision of District Judge Gillian Hussey, at Kilmainham Court, who granted search warrants of the company's offices last October. The judge had been told gardai were investigating whether Mr Gilligan and his wife, Geraldine, had benefitted from drug trafficking.
The gardai, it was alleged, arrived at the firm's offices at Sunlight Chambers, Parliament Street, Dublin, on October 3rd last, wishing to see files relating to the property transactions on behalf of the Gilligans, who were named in the warrants.
When the case opened on Wednesday, it was stated on behalf of the firm that it had represented Mr Gilligan for a number of years in criminal proceedings and had represented Mr and Mrs Gilligan in the purchase of properties.
Yesterday, Insp McGinn said she was in charge of the money laundering investigation and commercial fraud unit. An operation, code-named "Pineapple", had been set up. This was a very active investigation into money laundering and drug trafficking. The "Pineapple" investigation started in April 1996, with 12 officers. The principal subjects of the investigation were the Gilligans and Matilda Dunne, a name sometimes used by Mrs Gilligan.
Gardai believed there would be information in solicitors' offices. Her investigations showed that the Gilligans had used substantial money to buy property and that the firm of Michael E Hanahoe had dealt with conveyancing of property and in the obtaining and discharging of mortgages.
Mr Gilligan had a lot of associates who also had access to a lot of money, were buying property and opening accounts under false names and in company names.
Det Insp McGinn said she met senior gardai on September 30th, to decide what direction the investigation would take. It was decided they needed to obtain evidence in the offices of Michael E Hanahoe and Co and would only obtain that evidence by way of a search warrant.
She could have applied for a court order for the production of documents. However, they decided to go for the search warrant because, if they did not gain immediate access to the material, the investigation could have been seriously prejudiced.
She felt that, as the firm was the Gilligans' solicitors, it was precluded by a duty of confidentiality from releasing files to her.
If she had served an order seeking the production of the documents the solicitors' firm would have been obliged to look for instructions from its clients. Mr Gilligan would have become aware she was obtaining documents and would have sought to frustrate her efforts. By the time she would have got a search warrant, those documents would be gone.
She felt Mr Gilligan would have stopped her in any way he could to prevent her obtaining the documents. "I think nothing on this earth would have stopped him. He is a very dangerous criminal. It was vital and primary evidence of money laundering."
It was the 15th time she had made an application for a search warrant under "Pineapple". She had also made applications for production orders about 50 times.
This was the first time a search warrant had been sought against a solicitors' office. The others had been used to search Mr Gilligan's home, in relation to his financial advisers, accountants, insurance brokers and other people who were advising him.
Det Insp McGinn said she was making no suggestion that Michael E Hanahoe and Co would have frustrated her attempts to get files.
She said that, at the meeting on September 30th, Mr Barry Galvin, the solicitor to the Criminal Assets Bureau, told them it was the Law Society's view that if a production order was served on a solicitor, that solicitor would be obliged to contact his or her client.
Insp McGinn said that, apart from the people at the meeting, the only person to whom she spoke to was a Garda inspector on October 2nd about computer information.
The search team was not briefed until noon on October 3rd. No one had made a telephone call during the meeting. She had explained that this was a very sensitive search of the offices of prominent Dublin solicitors.
Mr Andrew Smyth, president of the Law Society last October, said he felt a great wrong had been done to the firm. He had written to the Garda Commissioner that a public apology to the firm would be in order. He was extremely disappointed with the commissioner's response as the commissioner did not express regret about the incident. The hearing continues.