FIANNA FÁIL fundraiser Des Richardson has brought a High Court challenge to a number of findings of the Mahon tribunal, including that he had failed to disclose the source of £39,000 held in a bank account.
Leave to bring the proceedings was granted on an ex-parte (one side only) basis by Mr Justice Michael Peart yesterday. The matter has been returned to July.
Mr Richardson claims the tribunal’s findings are wholly erroneous on grounds including that he was never asked during examination by counsel for the inquiry to account for the origins of the funds in the account, known as the Roevin Account.
The tribunal heard that in 1993, funds from a company called Roevin Ireland Ltd were used to purchase a bank draft paid to former taoiseach Bertie Ahern.
Mr Richardson was examined about his involvement with Roevin over two days.
In his proceedings, Mr Richardson, Serpentine Avenue, Dublin 4, wants two sections of the final report concerning him quashed.
The first of the two paragraphs (4.162) states: “Mr Richardson claimed not to have any knowledge of the source of the IR£39,000 which opened the (Roevin) account in 1992. The tribunal rejected Mr Richardson’s evidence in this regard.”
The second paragraph (4.163) states: “The Tribunal found it incredible that Mr Richardson, who without difficulty appeared able to access the account of Roevin Ireland Ltd on December 22 1993 and use its funds to obtain a draft payable to himself, was unable to account to the Tribunal for the origin of funds in the account.
“The Tribunal did not believe Mr Richardson in this regard, and concluded that Mr Richardson, in all probability, knew the reason why the account was opened and its purpose, and that he knew the source of the IR£39,000 which initially funded the account October 1992. Mr Richardson chose for whatever reason not to disclose this information to the Tribunal.”
Jim O’Callaghan SC, for Mr Richardson, said yesterday that his client entered into correspondence with the tribunal requesting it to identify where Mr Richardson claimed in his evidence he did not have any knowledge of the source of the £39,000 in the Roevin account.
In a letter from the tribunal, received yesterday by Mr Richardson’s solicitor, the tribunal accepted there was an absence of a direct question to Mr Richardson during his examination related to the source of the £39,000, Mr O’Callaghan said.
The tribunal wrote that it was prepared to replace the disputed paragraphs with amended versions, stating it was not in a position to identify the source of the money which opened the account in 1992.
The proposed amendment also stated that Mr Richardson did not identify the purpose and beneficiaries of the withdrawal of funds from the account save for £5,000 which funded the bank draft paid to Mr Ahern.
The tribunal was not prepared to simply delete the paragraphs.