Lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop has accused north Dublin landowner Mr Denis Mahony of being a willing participant in a "criminal enterprise" to bribe councillors to have lands rezoned.
Under cross-examination at the Mahon tribunal by Mr Gerard Hogan SC, for Mr Mahony, Mr Dunlop insisted he understood the landowner was aware councillors would have to be paid to ensure the lands were successfully rezoned from agricultural to residential.
In his written statement to the tribunal, Mr Dunlop said he was approached in March 1993 by Mr Mahony and his close friend and neighbour, Mr Noel Fox, to have their lands at Drumnigh, near Portmarnock, rezoned.
He says he agreed a fee of £10,000 in cash with the two men. Mr Dunlop said the men told him "that they knew the way the world worked". By this, he assumed they knew he would use part of the money for buying votes.
Mr Fox subsequently withdrew his application to have his portion of the land rezoned, fearing controversy and adverse media attention. Mr Dunlop said he understood Mr Fox was "going to grow trees on the land and give it to the kids".
Mr Mahony's lands were eventually rezoned for low-density residential use at the end of 1993, despite 2,530 objections from locals and county planners advising against it. The land, which he originally bought for £190,000, was passed on to his daughter and sold in 2000 for £13.5 million.
Mr Dunlop claims he paid four Fianna Fáil councillors a total of £6,000 for their support for the rezoning motion. He says this was standard practice for him in these situations. He claims he paid Mr GV Wright and Mr Sean Gilbride £2,000 each, while Mr Jack Larkin and Mr Cyril Gallagher were each given £1,000.
Mr Dunlop agreed this was "criminal" behaviour but said he was merely a conduit for the funds. However, he conceded Mr Mahony would not have known exact details of these payments. "The fewer people who knew the better, considering the context," he said.
Mr Hogan disputed the claims, insisting his client had no idea of the lobbyist's methods and would have been "appalled and horrified" to think his money was being used to pay off councillors.
He said Mr Mahony accepts giving Mr Dunlop half of the initial £10,000 fee and a further "success fee" of £2,000, but that this money was solely for "professional services". Mr Fox denies ever giving the lobbyist any payment of any nature.
Mr Hogan accused Mr Dunlop of using "euphemisms" such as fees and expenses to suggest illicit payments to councillors. His client, an "ordinary, decent man", had no idea what this secretive language meant and was therefore innocent of any improper behaviour.
He also accused Mr Dunlop of perjury in his evidence to the tribunal and of destroying the good name of "a highly distinguished businessman on allegations that rest on a slender and fabricated basis".