The Criminal Assets Bureau is expected to accelerate its examination of allegations involving politicians and public officials following Redmond's conviction, writes Paul Cullen.
Yesterday's landmark conviction of a former public official on corruption charges marks the end of a long battle for George Redmond, but the start of a new era of investigations into other public figures who are under suspicion.
Encouraged by the success of this case, the Criminal Assets Bureau is expected to accelerate its examination of other allegations involving politicians and public officials.
Redmond's long-running trial was regarded as a test case for other investigations. The frailties of the legislation covering bribery and corruption, which dates back to the 19th century, are well acknowledged, and a failure to secure a conviction against the former assistant Dublin county manager would have been taken as a signal that the fight against white-collar crime needed new laws on the statute book.
As the investigating superintendent in 1989 described it in his report: "Bribery and corruption are furtive crimes engaged in by more than one person. All involved benefit . . . Evidence to support criminal charges in this type of crime is almost impossible to obtain."
Often evidence is unobtainable because both parties to the bribe have a vested interest in secrecy. At best, it is one man's word against another, as in Redmond's clash of evidence with garage-owner Mr Brendan Fassnidge, or Mr Frank Dunlop's allegations at the Mahon tribunal against a variety of political figures and landowners.
Yet times have changed since the Garda investigated allegations of planning corruption in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and got nowhere. When it comes to corruption, the public - and now, it seems, juries - are more likely to say: "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck."
The Flood (now Mahon) tribunal was the first body to investigate Redmond over five years ago and he gave extensive evidence in Dublin Castle in 2000. But the tribunal's slow-moving examination of his affairs was abruptly pushed aside when CAB swooped on the former official on his return from the Isle of Man in February 1999.
From that arrest stemmed a conviction on tax offences, a settlement with the Revenue Commissioners for £782,000 and the present corruption trial. But now that this process is completed, will the tribunal resume its investigations of Redmond?
This seems unlikely. For a start it has its hands full with Mr Dunlop's allegations. It would be years before the tribunal could find time to recall Redmond to the witness box. And to what purpose unless he was prepared to provide fresh information?
In any case, CAB is not finished with him. Redmond still faces two further charges in relation to the compulsory purchase by the council of land at Buzzardstown and Coolmine in the 1980s. The DPP must now decide whether to proceed with these charges.
Redmond faces up to seven years in jail when he comes up for sentencing next month. In normal circumstances a custodial sentence would be considered appropriate for an offence as serious as his, but his advanced age is likely to prove an important fact.
His legal team will undoubtedly produce medical evidence to show that he should not be incarcerated.
Redmond has had heart problems in recent years and his use of an earpiece in court appears to show his hearing has deteriorated. However, he is a generally fit person and still plays the odd game of tennis.
Lawyers may also revive earlier arguments about the media by claiming that Redmond did not get a fair trial because of adverse publicity or that it could be perceived that the judge might be influenced by this negative publicity in formulating the sentence to be given to Redmond.
If all else fails, the option of an appeal on a point of law remains.