CONCLUSIONS
IT IS important at the outset to be aware of the precise nature of the Price Waterhouse Report and the purpose for which it was commissioned.
Dunnes Stores has informed me that it commissioned Price Waterhouse to examine certain transactions as a result of information coming to its attention after Mr Ben Dunne had ceased to be an executive Director of the Company. The Company had become aware that Mr Ben Dunne had caused funds to be diverted to bank accounts which he had set up outside the normal books and records of the Company and which he had operated without the knowledge and consent of the other members of the Board. The Report was commissioned for use by the Company in Court proceedings.
The Price Waterhouse Report was intended to be available for use, on behalf of Dunnes Stores and/or the executive directors, in one or more court proceedings.
The Report prepared by Price Waterhouse is a draft report and was never issued in a final form. It comprises two volumes and is in the style of an accountants' report on the circumstances of very specific transactions, selected by Dunnes Stores, and into the accounting treatment of these transact ions in the records of the company. The transactions given to Price Waterhouse for investigation included the receipts into, and payments from, a number of specified bank accounts.
The Price Waterhouse report also addresses transactions with certain contractors and suppliers to the company, and with the treatment of these transactions in the books and records of the company. These do not, with one exception, involve any of the Relevant Persons or Entities.
Payments
In their report, Price Waterhouse have provided detailed analyses of the payments made from a number of specific bank accounts. It is these payments which form the main subject of my examination.
The paid cheques and bank statements were examined by Price Waterhouse in an attempt to identify the payees and the circumstances of the payments. However, the major proportion of the payments made from the bank accounts examined by Price Waterhouse were made out to cash or bearers, or were paid toe credit card accounts.
In the course of this examination Price Waterhouse were able to attribute the benefit from certain of these payments to persons not relevant to the examination. The company have advised me of the names of these employees and -I have been in a position to eliminate these persons from my examination.
As requested by the legal advisors to Dunnes Stores, I have not entered into correspondence with any persons who are clearly not relevant.
The payments from those bank accounts examined by Price Waterhouse can be analysed as follows:
Total payments: £5.633m
Payments made to persons who are not relevant: 18%
Payments made to other identified or alleged beneficiaries: 19%
Payments where the beneficiary cannot be determined: 63%
It is clear, therefore, that a major portion of the payments from the accounts examined by Price Waterhouse cannot be attributed to any beneficiary.
Of the 19 per cent of payments made to identified or alleged beneficiaries, the principal evidence which indicates the name of the alleged beneficiary of cheques made out to cash or bearer, is the endorsement on the cheque. In some cases, a named payee for credit transfer transactions has been noted on the Bank Statements.
It is essential to be aware that endorsement of the cheques may indicate, but does not prove, the final beneficiary of the funds.
Public Representatives
I have examined the names of current and former members of the Dail and Seanad and Local Authorities in order to establish whether they might be named as alleged beneficiaries of moneys from the bank accounts examined by Price Waterhouse.
The following paragraphs set out my findings.
Mr Michael Lowry TD
In the course of my examination the name of Michael Lowry was noted as being an alleged beneficiary of funds from Mr Ben Dunne. The details in the report are as follows:
. 20 December 1989: Cash cheque for £6,000 endorsed by Michael Lowry
. 10 July 1991: Cash cheque for £6,500 endorsed by Michael Lowry
. 25 May 1992: Cheque for £50,000 to Streamline Enterprises, endorsed by Streamline Enterprises and Michael Lowry
. 24 February 1993: Cheque for £76,674 to Faxhill Homes Ltd in respect of the third architect's certificate for work at Glenreigh Beg, Holycross, Tipperary. The value of work certified by the architects as completed totalled £207,818.73 to 22 February 1993 (£214,885 including VAT).
In their reply to my queries on these payments, Dunnes Stores have stated that a further certificate marked "fourth and final" has recently come to light. This certificate shows that the total value of the work carried out amounted to £395,109.19 (including VAT). The payments referred to appear to have been arranged by Mr Ben Dunne directly with Mr M Lowry and thus the current directors of Dunnes Stores were not a party thereto and cannot explain the reasoning behind such payments.
I requested Mr Michael Lowry TD to provide me with any comments which he would like to make on the above transactions, for inclusion in my Report. In his reply, Mr Lowry stated that the matters referred to were the subject of a personal statement made by him to Dail Eireann on Thursday 19th December 1996, during which he set out the nature and basis of the relationship between Streamline Enterprises, himself and Dunnes Stores.
His comments on the specific items noted in the Price Waterhouse Report are as follows:
. The cheque for £6,000 (20 December 1989) and the cheque for £6,500 (10 July 1991): These were paid as bonuses by Dunnes Stores' for the staff of Streamline Enterprises.
. The cheque for £50,000 (25 May 1992) to Streamline Enterprises endorsed by Streamline and Michael Lowry: This was income payable to Mr Lowry under his arrangement with, Dunnes Stores for technical advice and project management.
. The cheque for £76,674 to Faxhill Homes Limited in respect of a third architect's certificate: Mr Lowry states that he was owed a considerable but undetermined sum of money by Dunnes Stores, Mr Ben Dunne proposed that Dunnes Stores would undertake the renovation of Mr Lowry's house at Holycross, Co Tipperary. Dunnes Stores appointed its architect and contractor. Whilst Mr Lowry accepts that substantial works were carried out to the house, he does not accept that such works had a value of £395,109.19.
Mr Lowry stated emphatically that these payments, made to him or in relation to him, were made in the course of a business relationship with Dunnes Stores. He also wishes to state clearly and categorically that none of these transactions was in any way whatsoever connected with his role as an elected politician or his role as a Minister.
With regard to media reports to the effect that the refurbishment costs relating to his house were off-set initially within Dunnes Stores to the ILAC Shopping Centre, he had no knowledge of, or involvement in the manner in which these payments were treated internally within Dunnes Stores.
Dunnes Stores has indicated to me that it is in dispute with Mr Lowry with regard to these matters and does not accept that any money is owing by any Dunnes Stores Company to Mr Lowry or, other than in respect of current trading, to Streamline Enterprises. Dunnes Stores has further reserved its position with regard to any monies which may be owing by Mr Lowry or Streamline Enterprises to any Dunnes Stores company and does not accept Mr Lowry's position with regard to the works carried out on his house at Holycross, Co Tipperary.
Other Public Representatives
The name of one alleged payee was similar to that of a present member of the Oireachtas. I wrote to ask whether that public representative had been the beneficiary of these funds and requesting any comments for inclusion in my report. I have received a reply from that person in which he states that he was neither acquainted with Mr Ben Dunne nor had any financial transactions with him, and I accept that statement.
Three payments were noted which.had been made to persons with similar names to relatives of a former public representative Mr Charles J Haughey. I have written to these persons asking whether they were the beneficiaries of the payments noted in the report and seeking their comments. The details of these payments are as follows:
In the course of this examination a person named Maureen Haughey was noted as an alleged beneficiary of funds from Mr Ben Dunne. The report shows a payment as follows:
. 14 June 1989: Cash cheque for £20,000, EBS Malahide 17 June, 1989
Mrs Maureen Haughey, wife of Mr Charles J Haughey, has informed me that the cheque referred to represented an unsolicited contribution given to her towards election expenses incurred by her husband during the June 1989 General Election campaign.
In the course of my examination a person named Mr Ciaran Haughey was noted as an alleged beneficiary of funds from Mr Ben Dunne. The report shows a payment as follows:
. 1 October 1988: Cash cheque for £10,000, endorsed by Ciaran Haughey Mr Ciaran Haughey, son of Mr Charles J Haughey, has confirmed that he was the recipient of a payment of £10,000 in October 1988 and that this money was paid to him by Mr Ben Dunne in relation to his helicopter business.
In the course of my examination a person named Fr Eoghan Haughey was noted as an alleged beneficiary of funds from Mr Ben Dunne. I have been informed that Fr Eoghan Haughey OMI was given a donation of £2,000 by Mr Dunne for masses.
Political Parties
The Price Waterhouse includes three payments by Mr Ben Dunne to Fine Gael on the following dates:
14 June 1988: £5,000
14 October 1989: £30,000
24 April 1991: £50,000
I asked the General Secretary of Fine Gael for his comments on these payments. In his reply the General Secretary emphasised that he can only report in relation to the financial records of Fine Gael Party Headquarters and not in relation to the Constituency units of the Party or of individuals. He confirmed that the payments of £30,000 in October 1989 and £50,000 in April 1991 had been lodged in a Fine Gael Party Headquarters bank account and were used to defray election expenses or reduce the Party's debts which had arisen as a result of election spending. There is no record of a payment to Fine Gael Party Headquarters on or about 14 June 1988 of £5,000 from Dunnes Stores/Mr Ben Dunne.
Mr Ben Dunne
Having regard to the allegations which have been made concerning the payments made by Mr Ben Dunne, I considered that it would be essential that he be offered an opportunity to clarify details of certain payments made and I wrote to him requesting his assistance.
Through his legal advisors, Mr Dunne emphasised that the Price Waterhouse Report had been prepared by Dunnes Stores in contemplation of litigation arising, from a dispute between the company and himself. Mr Dunne was, not, he pointed out, involved in the preparation of this Report and the contents of the Report were primarily, in his opinion, based on information provided by the Company and its then Executive Directors to Price Waterhouse.
In these circumstances Mr Dunne believes that the Company must know about all the matters in the Report and as such should be in a position to provide me with any information, I required in relation to transactions, the subject matter of the Report. Notwithstanding this Mr Dunne has offered to assist me in relation to any written requests for information, provided he is able to do so.
It was also made clear to me that while Mr Dunne wished to be of assistance to me, he was, he claimed, himself under certain, legal restraints and did not have the benefit of what he considered to be the very extensive indemnity provided by the Government to the Company in respect of the giving of information, explanations and clarifications and was also under certain confidentiality obligations arising out of the Agreement on foot of which the proceedings between himself and the Company were settled.
I had deferred writing to Mr Dunne until other matters had been clarified, but as these do not appear to relate to named public representatives I have thought it proper to present this interim report as requested.
Dunnes Stores has indicated to me that the reported comment of Mr Ben Dunne that the Company should be in a position to provide any required information with regard to the transactions in the Price Waterhouse Report is totally inaccurate and misleading. As referred to above, the Company has informed me that the Price Waterhouse investigation was commissioned by the company to ascertain information with regard to certain unauthorised transactions which Mr Ben Dunne has implemented and, as Mr Ben Dunne declined to co-operate with Price Waterhouse, they were unable to find out full details with regard to these matters. The details of these transactions within the knowledge of Mr Ben Dunne.
Continuing Examination
This interim report addresses the results of my examination of payments which might have been made to public representatives. My examination is continuing into payments which may have been made to the other categories of Relevant Persons or Entities.