16-01Mr Burke did not purchase his home at Briargate Malahide Swords from Oakpark Developments Limited in 1973 in a normal commercial transaction.
16-02The consideration (if any) passing between Mr Burke and the directors of Oakpark Developments Limited, Mr Tom Brennan and Mr Jack Foley, for the dwelling house and lands at Briargate did not represent the open market value of the property.
16-03The assignment of Briargate by Oakpark Developments Limited to Mr Burke conferred a substantial benefit upon him which in the opinion of the Tribunal was given in order to ensure that he would act in the best interests of Oakpark Developments Limited's director, Mr Tom Brennan and his associates when performing his public duties as a member of Dublin County Council and a member of Dáil Éireann.
16-04The Tribunal has been unable to discover what actions Mr Burke performed for Mr Tom Brennan or his associates in return for the benefit provided to him. It is the opinion of the Tribunal and the Tribunal concludes that the benefit which was conferred upon Mr Burke was conferred in circumstances which gave rise to a reasonable inference that the motives for making and receiving this benefit were connected with the public office held by Mr Burke.
16-05In the opinion of the Tribunal the transfer of Briargate to Mr Burke amounted to a corrupt payment to him from Mr Tom Brennan and his associates.
16-06The accounts opened for Mr Burke at AIB Bank (Isle of Man) Limited in the name of Mr PD Burke in 1982, and at Hill Samuel & Company (Jersey) Limited in the name of Caviar Limited in 1984, were opened in order to receive payments from Mr Tom Brennan and his associates, which were not the proceeds of political fundraising activities or political donations from Mr Tom Brennan, but were payments made to Mr Burke in order to ensure that he would continue to act in the best interests of those who had paid him when performing his public duties as a member of Dublin County Council, and as a member of Dáil Éireann.
16-07The payment of stg£50,000 by Kalabraki Limited to the account of Mr PD Burke at AIB Bank (Isle of Man) Limited on the 21st of December 1982 was a corrupt payment made by Mr Tom Brennan to Mr Burke.
16-08The payment of stg. £35,000 to the account of Caviar Limited at Hill Samuel & Company (Jersey) Limited per Allied Irish Bank on the 19 th of April 1984 was a corrupt payment to Mr Burke probably made by Mr Tom Brennan and his associates.
16-09The payment of stg. £60,000 to the account of Caviar Limited by Canio Limited on the 21st of November 1984 was a corrupt payment to Mr Burke which was funded to an amount of stg £25,000 each by Mr Tom Brennan and Mr Joseph McGowan, and to an amount of stg £10,000 by Mr John Finnegan.
16-10The payment of stg£15,000 to the account of Caviar Limited by Canio Limited on the 19th April 1985 was a corrupt payment to Mr Burke which was funded jointly by Mr Tom Brennan and Mr Joseph McGowan.
16-11The Tribunal has been unable to discover what specific action Mr Burke took to advance the interests of those who had paid him these monies which were lodged to his offshore accounts at AIB Bank (Isle of Man) Limited and at Hill Samuel & Company (Jersey) Limited, but is satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that he acted in their interests in the performance of his public duties.
16-12The Ministerial Directive obliging RTÉ to provide its facilities to Century issued by Mr Burke as Minster for Communications on the 14 th March 1989, was issued to advance the private interests of the promoters of Century and not to serve the public interest.
16-13The payment of £35,000 to Mr Burke by Mr Barry on the 26th May 1989 was a corrupt payment made in response to a demand for £30,000 cash by Mr Burke, and was not intended by Mr Barry to be a political donation to Mr Burke or to Fianna Fáil.
16-14In proposing legislation which would have had the effect of curbing RTÉ's advertising, altering the format of 2FM, and diverting broadcasting licence fee income from RTÉ to independent broadcasters, Mr Burke was acting in response to demands made of him by the promoters of Century and was not serving the public interest.
16-15The payment of £35,000 to Mr Burke by Mr Barry ensured that he was available to serve the interests of Century's promoters, as is evidenced by his willingness to meet with their bankers and to give them assurances that he would take steps, including, if necessary, the introduction of legislation which would be to Century's financial benefit.
16-16The meeting at Mr Burke's home at Briargate, Swords, Co. Dublin, in the week prior to the 15 th June 1989, was specifically arranged by Mr Michael Bailey and Mr Burke so as to allow for the payment of money to be made to Mr Burke. The meeting was not arranged in order to receive a political donation, but was arranged for the purpose of paying Mr Burke money to ensure his support, and his influence over others, so as to achieve the alteration of the planning status of the Murphy company's North Dublin lands, described as lots 1-6 in Mr Bailey's letter of the 8th June 1989 addressed to Mr Gogarty.
16-17The parties present at the meeting were Mr Burke, Mr Michael Bailey, Mr Joseph Murphy Jnr., and Mr James Gogarty.
16-18The Murphy executives present at the meeting believed that the JMSE payment which was passed in a closed envelope by Mr Joseph Murphy Jnr. to Mr Burke was being matched by an equal payment from Mr Michael Bailey contained in an envelope which they observed being passed by Mr Michael Bailey to Mr Burke.
16-19The meeting took place with the prior knowledge of Mr Joseph Murphy Snr, Mr Frank Reynolds, and Mr Roger Copsey, each of whom was aware that it was intended to pay Mr Burke £80,000 in order to ensure his support in achieving the intended changes in the planning status of the Murphy's North Dublin lands, which were at that time the subject of a participation proposal, which if concluded, would have resulted in Mr Michael Bailey receiving a 50 per cent interest in the Murphy's North Dublin lands.
16-20Mr Joseph Murphy Snr was the ultimate decision maker when it came to either selling the lands or entering into the participation proposal with Mr Bailey.
16-21On a date subsequent to the 3 rd July 1989 and prior to the 10 th July 1989 Mr Joseph Murphy Snr decided not to enter into the participation proposal envisaged by Mr Michael Bailey, but to sell the lands outright.
16-22The role of Mr James Gogarty was that of a functionary only, and all actions taken by him in connection with the sale of the lands, the participation proposal, and the attendance at Mr Burke's home, were taken by him at the request of Mr Joseph Murphy Snr.
16-23Mr Burke assured those present at the time of the payment of monies to him that he understood that the payment was being made in connection with the proposal to alter the planning status of the Murphy lands and further assured those present that he would honour his commitment to do so.
16-24The payment received by Mr Burke amounted to a corrupt payment and all present at the meeting were aware that it was such.