Mr Frank Dunlop maintained a "stash of cash" in a "war chest" in a Dublin bank, from which he could make payments to politicians, he told the Flood tribunal yesterday. He said he also used the account in the AIB in Rathfarnham Road for personal expenditure.
Mr Dunlop detailed payments into the account from 1991 to 1993. He gave the tribunal a list of 14 payments and said the parties who made them were generally interested in the review of the 1983 County Dublin Development Plan, which became the 1993 Development Plan. Each contributor was seeking the rezoning of land in that plan and would generally have had direct or indirect interests in those lands.
The individuals and companies who made the payments were not named by Mr Dunlop in his evidence, although he wrote down those he could remember and passed them to the tribunal.
The following are details of the 14 payments Mr Dunlop said he received for his help to get land rezoned:
1. £25,000 cash from a company promoting a scheme in what is now the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown council area. Mr Dunlop's instructions were "to get the land zoned". There were two individuals, with a widespread suspicion that there was a third "sleeping partner". This suspected partner introduced Mr Dunlop to the two individuals. Mr Dunlop received instructions directly from the first individual and indirectly from the second. The sleeping partner had a "quasi-management" role.
The rezoning effort was a total failure, with the motion lost by one vote. When asked how he applied the £25,000, Mr Dunlop said it was part of the war chest he built for personal as well as other purposes. He said the "road map in relation to a large part of this" was the Development Plan published by Dublin County Council in 1990 which came into effect in 1993. "That period is the road map that relates obviously to a lot of the building of this war chest," he added.
2. £17,500 in several cheques from two directors of a now defunct company relating to land owned by an "entity" and currently in South Dublin County Council area. Mr Dunlop supplied to the tribunal the name of the company and directors.
He described the case as a "relatively innocent" procedure involving two very honourable people who were completely frustrated after making numerous unsuccessful applications to have the land rezoned. Mr Dunlop said his services included introducing them to a number of local representatives with whom they had had ongoing difficulties.
"I tried to act as an honest broker - as a broker, I will delete the word honest - a broker in relation to facilitating the exercise," Mr Dunlop said. One of the elected representatives was relatively enthusiastic and another maintained complete opposition.
The land was rezoned and houses were built on it. Mr Dunlop could not say if he had made a payment to the enthusiastic councillor on this matter, but his name was on the list he supplied to the tribunal regarding payments he made in 1991.
3. About £7,500 cash from a builder in relation to land in the now South Dublin County Council area. There was frenetic activity in relation to council meetings and motions and Mr Dunlop's role was to ensure that a number of people who were not on-side could either come on-side or absent themselves, "which was as good as a vote for".
A number of people came onside, but the land was not rezoned. The "enthusiastic councillor" referred to in relation to payment 2 was a central figure in this issue also, because he was causing "some difficulties". Mr Dunlop said it was extremely difficult to answer the question whether that person was paid in relation to this proposal.
4. £30,000 in two cheques on June 20th, 1991, and November 10th, 1992. The money was requested by Mr Dunlop from the client for legitimate political donations in the run-up to the 1991 local elections and the 1992 general election.
He had an extremely good relationship with the client. The development had been subject to a material contravention in 1990 and was "well on the way to fruition", Mr Dunlop said. The person referred to as a possible sleeping partner regarding payment 1 introduced Mr Dunlop to this project two years or more previously.
Mr Dunlop also referred to an additional payment referred to as 4A. It was £10,000 from same client who had made payment 4.
5. £10,000 in cash relating to land on the north side of Dublin city. Mr Dunlop said the key individual he received the payment from had very long political connections across the political divide and did quite a substantial amount of the lobbying work himself. There were others involved, but their names escaped him. The land was successfully rezoned.
6. £10,000, part cheque, part cash, from a member of an investment consortium relating to land in the same general area of north Dublin as that referred to in payment 5. Mr Dunlop presumed the people either had the option on the land or owned the land. The land was successfully rezoned.
7. About £10,000 from an individual who owned land in south Dublin. He met the man at his home a number of times. Mr Dunlop could not recollect the outcome of the rezoning motion and was reluctant to inquire for reasons of confidentiality.
8. About £5,000 cash for a "particularly difficult assignment" regarding land on the north side of the city proximate to the land referred to in payment 6. These lands, together with the land relating to payment 5, were the subject of intense opposition by a State entity, Mr Dunlop said.
The land this payment related to was "heavily promoted" by a political entity that one would not normally regard as being involved in rezoning. The rezoning was successful and the land has been built on. The person who gave him the money had the initial J.
9. About £5,000 cash from an individual relating to land on the north side of the county. Mr Dunlop was almost certain he received the payment in the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin. He said this individual became involved at the behest of somebody else and was acting as a minority partner.
10 & 11. £12,000 from two neighbours regarding land on the north side of the county. Mr Dunlop described the transaction as a "panic procedure" after an elected representative who was supposed to look after the issue had "made a mess" of it.
The deal with 10 was made in the Shelbourne Hotel. The land was rezoned. Number 11 withdrew and the land was not rezoned. Mr Dunlop said he thought this individual withdrew because he thought it would be too controversial and would bring him unnecessary public attention locally and media-wise.
12. £12,000 cash which Mr Dunlop collected from an office regarding land in the very north of Co Dublin. The person who made the payment was the second individual named in relation to payment 1.
13. £25,000 in two cheques from a company in relation to a development in the now Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Council area, close to the scheme referred to in payment 1. Mr Dunlop said he was not centrally involved in this development, but difficulties arose with the agents and they came to him for advice and assistance. The land was rezoned.
14. £6,000 from a house-building company in south Dublin dealing with lands in the area. Mr Dunlop said he had a recollection some of the money was asked back. He said he suspected this was because the person involved had made payments independently to councillors.