Gilmartin told banker of demand for 'seven- figure sum'

An IBI investment banker has told the Mahon tribunal that Luton-based developer Tom Gilmartin complained to him in 1989 that he had been asked for a "seven-figure sum" by a politician.

Johnny Fortune, who was director of corporate finance with Investment Bank of Ireland (IBI) in 1989 and advised Mr Gilmartin about a proposed development at Bachelors Walk, corroborated evidence given by Mr Gilmartin about a demand he alleged took place in early 1989.

He said he was aware Mr Gilmartin had been depicted in the papers "as some form of malevolent fantasist", but to him he was "a very straightforward, decent type of person to deal with".

Mr Gilmartin had told the tribunal that the late Liam Lawlor arranged a meeting for him at Leinster House in January or February 1989.

He was introduced to then taoiseach Charles Haughey and a number of other ministers, including Bertie Ahern, Gerry Collins, Brian Lenihan and Mary O'Rourke, he said.

Afterwards, he was approached in the corridor by a man he didn't recognise, who suggested he would make a lot of money from his development and should pay £5 million into a bank account in the Isle of Man.

Mr Gilmartin had said he'd attended a meeting at IBI after the encounter and told someone there about what had happened to him.

Mr Fortune said yesterday he did recall a meeting with Mr Gilmartin at which he said he was asked for money.

"When he spoke to me he was extremely angry and upset," Mr Fortune said. "He mentioned a seven-figure sum using quite a number of expletives." He said the only name he could recall Mr Gilmartin mentioning was Liam Lawlor's.

Mr Fortune said he contacted solicitor Paul Carroll, a friend of his, after Mr Gilmartin asked him for help in 2004 because he was getting a "rough ride".

Memos from his conversations with Mr Carroll were read into the record by counsel for the tribunal, Pat Quinn SC.

Mr Quinn said they gave a more "graphic description" of Mr Fortune's recollections, including a description of "an ashen-faced Mr Gilmartin" recounting the demand made of him. Mr Fortune said he was not sure if he had said that and pointed out the discussion had been "a conversation with a friend" and not legal advice.

Mr Gilmartin is due to take the stand again next week, for cross-examination only.

Mr Carroll could not take on Mr Fortune because his firm was already advising Mr Gilmartin. It was agreed that they would tell Mr Gilmartin about Mr Fortune's recollection and would leave it to him to advance the matter.