A Dublin solicitor has told the tribunal he would have intervened to stop a land deal if he had known others were making a secret profit, unknown to his clients.
Mr Walter Beatty, a partner in Vincent and Beatty solicitors, acted for the Convent of the Sacred Heart in the sale of 10 acres at Monkstown, Co Dublin in 1977.
Mr John Finnegan was engaged as an auctioneer to sell the lands for the nuns, but he was also involved with builders Brennan and McGowan in purchasing the land through an offshore company.
Mr Beatty said he was unaware that Mr Finnegan was involved with any party other than the convent. He was also unaware of a complex scheme involving offshore companies which was used in the deal.
Companies owned by Brennan and McGowan acquired the leasehold from the nuns for £210,000 and the freehold for £10,000. Arising out of these transactions, an additional £350,000 was transferred to Jersey and shared between Mr Finnegan and the two builders. Mr Finnegan got £105,000.
Tribunal lawyers have already accused Brennan and McGowan of paying a £100,000 "bribe" to Mr Finnegan in return for Mr Finnegan "delivering" the property for them to buy. Last week, Ms Patricia Dillon SC, for the tribunal, described it as a "dirty little deal".
Yesterday, Ms Dillon asked the witness whether he believed Mr Finnegan was entitled to act as auctioneer in the transaction if he was involved with the purchasers.
Mr Beatty replied that if a person was acting as an auctioneer and simultaneously a series of transactions was going to "throw up something" that would benefit a professional person with the knowledge of that person's client, "that would not be proper conduct".
If the vendor had not been made aware of an agreement between the professional and the buyers that would be a conflict of interest. "If I was aware, hypothetically, that there was a secret profit being made at the expense of my client, I would have stepped in and done whatever I could to stop it, because if a profit was being made my client should get it."
Asked whether the convent had received fair value for their lands, Mr Beatty said the price obtained appeared to be "a very good price". Sister Dillon, the provincial treasurer of the nuns, was "a very astute lady" and would have had access to her own intelligence. "We both thought £210,000 was a very good price."
Ms Dillon pointed out that Mr Tom Brennan had told the Revenue Commissioners in 1985 that £560,000 was a reasonable price to pay for the freehold and leasehold interests in the land.
However, Mr Beatty said £560,000 would have been an enormous price for the time. He agreed the property would have been "useless" to a builder unless the purchaser obtained the freehold in addition to the leasehold. This was because it were subject to restrictive covenants limiting the number of houses that could be built on the land.
The sale by the nuns was made conditional on the purchaser obtaining planning permission for at least six houses an acre. . Ultimately, about 70 houses were built on the land.
Mr Beatty agreed with Mr Dominick Hussey SC, for Mr Finnegan, that the auctioneer had provided "extremely good advice".
