MR BERTIE AHERN AND QUARRYVALE (EXCLUDING THE INQUIRY INTO HIS FINANCES) 1.

The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Ahern was probably aware, prior to his trip to Los Angeles on 11 March 1994, of Mr Niall Lawlors association with Chilton & OConnor (Investment Bankers based in LA) having regard to the specific reference to that connection in the documents faxed from the Irish Consulate in Los Angeles to Mr Aherns private secretary on 4 March 1994. The Tribunal believed it most unlikely that Mr Ahern would not have been fully advised on the content of the Consulates memorandum of 4 March 1994, including the specific reference to Mr Lawlors son, and his expected attendance at the planned reception for Mr Ahern. 2. The Tribunal rejected Mr Aherns evidence that the All Purpose National Stadium project had not been a principal topic of discussion between himself and Mr OConnor on 11 March 1994. Mr Ahern sought to maintain this position, notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous terms of Mr Burke of Chilton OConnors letter of 3 March 1994 to the Irish Consulate. MR OCALLAGHAN AND MR BERTIE AHERN 1. The Tribunal rejected as not credible Mr OCallaghans evidence that although probably aware of the fact that Mr Ahern was meeting Chilton & OConnor on 11 March 1994 in Los Angeles, he remained unaware of the outcome of such a meeting. The Tribunal was satisfied that in all probability Mr OCallaghan was briefed on this meeting by either Chilton & OConnor, or by Mr Lawlor, and perhaps by Mr Ahern himself on 24 March 1994. 2. The Tribunal was satisfied that the topics discussed at a meeting between Mr OCallaghan and Mr Ahern at a meeting between them on 24 March 1994, were Mr OCallaghans concerns regarding the Blanchardstown tax designation issue, and his plans for the All Purpose National Stadium. The Tribunal was satisfied that in all probability, Mr OCallaghan lobbied Mr Ahern for government support and funding for the stadium project. It was inconceivable that such discussion would not have taken place, having regard to Mr Dunlops letter of 1 December 1993 to Mr Ahern wherein a meeting was sought for Mr OCallaghan with Mr Ahern regarding the stadium, and having regard to the fact that as of 1 December 1993, Mr Ahern was in possession of documentation relating to the stadium project which had been enclosed by Mr Dunlop in correspondence with him. Moreover, it appeared to the Tribunal extremely unlikely that the issue of the stadium project and its funding would not have been discussed between Mr OCallaghan and Mr Ahern having regard to the fact that Mr Ahern had met with Chilton & OConnor on 11 March 1994. 3. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of Mr OCallaghan and Mr Dunlop that on 10 November 1994, Mr OCallaghans stadium proposal was dismissed or rejected by Mr Ahern in the manner described by them. The Tribunal rejected their evidence notwithstanding the fact that the Department of Finance had given the stadium proposal a negative appraisal on 7 September 1994. In arriving at this determination, the Tribunal took particular note of the

contemporaneous documentation relating to the meeting of 10 November 1994 which was made available to the Tribunal, and which suggested that, subsequent to his 10 November meeting with Mr Ahern, Mr OCallaghan had spoken of the project as if it were clearly still live. 4. The Tribunal was satisfied that as of 10 November 1994, contrary to evidence given by Mr OCallaghan and Mr Dunlop (and also notwithstanding Mr Aherns evidence) there remained on the part of Mr OCallaghan and Mr OConnor and indeed of Mr Dunlop, every expectation that they would further progress their stadium proposals in subsequent contact with Mr Ahern. THE INQUIRY INTO MR BERTIE AHERNS FINANCES THE LODGEMENT OF IR22,500 TO MR AHERNS SPECIAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT ON 30 DECEMBER 1993 1. The Tribunal rejected the evidence that in December 1993, there had been a collection organised by Mr Des Richardson and / or Mr Gerry Brennan from friends of Mr Ahern, or that IR22,500 was provided to Mr Ahern, in the manner claimed, on 27 December 1993. Equally, the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Ahern did not receive any such sum, either as a gift or as a loan, from the identified individuals. 2. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of Mr Ahern, Mr Richardson, Mr Charlie Chawke, Mr Michael Collins, Mr David McKenna, and Mr Jim Nugent in relation to their involvement in a collection for Mr Ahern of IR22,500 in December 1993. 3. The Tribunal accepted Mr Padraic OConnors contention that he and Mr Ahern were not close personal friends in 1993, and that such friendship as did exist between them at that time was based on an occasional, albeit close working or professional relationship in the course of which Mr Ahern, in his capacity for Minister for Finance, received professional advice from Mr OConnor on economic and currency issues. 4. The Tribunal accepted Mr OConnors evidence that Mr Des Richardson requested a donation towards the expenses of Mr Aherns constituency office, St. Lukes, and that he had not been requested to make a donation to Mr Ahern personally. 5. Contrary to what had been claimed by Mr Des Richardson, the evidence to the Tribunal did not establish that a bank draft for IR5,000 (which was included in the IR22,500 provided to Mr Ahern in December 1993), had been funded, directly or indirectly, by the payment of IR6,050 which had been paid by NCB Stockbrokers, on Mr OConnors instructions, following the request for a donation to Mr Aherns constituency office made by Mr Richardson. Nor, contrary to Mr Aherns claim, did it come from Mr OConnor personally. 6. The Tribunal accepted Mr OConnors evidence that, contrary to what Mr

Ahern had claimed, Mr Ahern never acknowledged to him, either formally or informally, that he had received a contribution of IR5,000 from Mr OConnor, and had also accepted Mr OConnors evidence that Mr Ahern had never offered to repay money to Mr OConnor MR AHERNS CLAIM TO HAVE ACCUMULATED SAVINGS OF CIRCA IR54,000 IN THE PERIOD 1987 TO 1993 1. While the Tribunal accepted that Mr Aherns usual practice in the period 1987 to 1993, was to cash salary and expenses cheques, and to generally pay bills, living expenses and other disbursements with cash, rather than using a bank account, it rejected Mr Aherns evidence that over this period of time, he had accumulated approximately IR54,000 in cash savings. THE LODGEMENTS TOTALLING IR30,000 MADE ON 25 APRIL 1994 1. The Tribunal rejected Mr Aherns evidence as to the funds which sourced these lodgements, and was satisfied that most, if not all, of the said IR30,000 cash came into the possession of Mr Ahern between 23 December 1993 and 25 April 1994. 2. Because Mr Ahern failed to disclose the true source of these lodgements to the Tribunal, the Tribunal was unable to determine the source of these funds. THE LODGEMENT OF IR20,000 MADE ON 8 AUGUST 1994 1. The Tribunal rejected Mr Aherns evidence as to the source of the IR20,000 cash which funded the lodgement to his account on 8 August 1994. The Tribunal was satisfied that, contrary to what Mr Ahern had stated, a significant portion, if not the entire, of the said funds came into Mr Aherns possession between 25 April 1994 and 8 August 1994. 2. Because Mr Ahern failed to disclose to the Tribunal the true source of the said lodgement, the Tribunal was unable to determine the source of those funds. THE LODGEMENT OF IR24,838.49 TO A BANK ACCOUNT OF MR AHERN ON 11 OCTOBER 1994 1. Mr Ahern maintained that this lodgement was comprised of approximately IR16,500, collected for him by identified friends and then accepted by him as a repayable loan, together with Stg 8,000 approximately, presented to him following a dinner engagement in Manchester. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of Mr Ahern, and of others, to the effect that such collections had taken place and were the source of the funds lodged to Mr Aherns account on 11 October 1994. 2. The Tribunal was satisfied that the said lodgement of IR24,838.49 on 11 October 1994 had in fact been funded by Stg 25,000 cash.

3. Because of Mr Aherns failure to account to the Tribunal for the source of the funds which comprised this lodgement, the Tribunal was unable to determine the source thereof. THE LODGEMENT OF IR28,772.90 TO A BANK ACCOUNT OF MS CELIA LARKIN ON 5 DECEMBER 1994 1. Mr Ahern claimed that the source of this lodgement on 5 December 1994 was approximately Stg 30,000 cash provided to him by his friend Mr Michael Wall (as a fund for use in connection with 44 Beresford Avenue, Drumcondra), and which, in turn, he provided to Ms Larkin for lodgement to an account in her name. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of Mr Ahern and Mr Wall to the effect that Mr Wall paid approximately Stg 30,000 cash to Mr Ahern for the said, or any, purpose. 2. The Tribunal was satisfied that the source of the foreign currency which funded the lodgement of IR28,772.90 on 5 December 1994 was not, as contended by Mr Ahern, approximately Stg 30,000 cash, but was in fact US$45,000, cash. 3. Because of Mr Aherns failure to account to the Tribunal as to the true source of the foreign currency which funded the said lodgement, the Tribunal was unable to determine the source of these funds. THE LODGEMENT OF IR11,743.74 TO A BANK ACCOUNT OF MS CELIA LARKIN ON 15 JUNE 1995 1. This lodgement was comprised of two separate sums, namely IR9,743.74 from an exchange of Stg 10,000 cash, and IR2,000 cash. Mr Ahern maintained that the Stg 10,000 cash element of the lodgement represented part of a purchase of Stg 30,000 cash by him (or by others on his behalf), which in turn had been funded by some of the IR50,000 cash withdrawn by Ms Larkin from the Larkin 015 account on 19 January 1995 (which had originally been lodged on 5 December 1994) following Mr Aherns request that she return these monies to him. The Tribunal rejected Mr Aherns evidence that he had purchased Stg 30,000 cash, and therefore rejected his evidence that the said lodgement of IR11,743.74 on 15 June 1995 had been part funded by sterling purchased, as claimed, by Mr Ahern. 2. Because Mr Ahern failed to account to the Tribunal as to the true source of the said Stg 10,000 cash element in the lodgement on 15 June 1995, the Tribunal was unable to determine its actual source. THE LODGEMENT OF IR19,142.92 TO A BANK ACCOUNT OF MR AHERN ON 1 DECEMBER 1995 1. This lodgement was funded entirely by Stg 20,000 in cash. The Tribunal rejected Mr Aherns evidence that the Stg 20,000 was purchased by him (as part of the Stg30,000 purchase referred to above). It followed therefore that

the IR19,142.92 lodgement was unrelated to the IR50,000 which had been withdrawn in cash by Ms. Larkin from the Larkin 015 account on 19 January 1995. 2. Because Mr Ahern failed to truthfully account to the Tribunal as to the source of the sterling used to fund the IR19,142.92 lodgement on 1 December 1995, the Tribunal was unable to pronounce as to its source. THE IRISH PERMANENT BUILDING SOCIETY ACCOUNTS 1. The Tribunal rejected Mr Aherns contention that he had no recollection of lodging or causing to be lodged, the Irish pound equivalent of Stg 15,500 in cash over a period of approximately seven months in 1994, to his own account and to those of his daughters with the Irish Permanent Building Society. 2. The Tribunal rejected Mr Aherns explanation as to the sources of the said Stg 15,500, including his claim, that having cashed salary cheques and expenses cheques, he intermittently conveyed that cash to the UK, and there converted the proceeds into sterling cash, then bringing the sterling amounts back to Dublin and there holding the sterling cash in his safe. The Tribunal also rejected Mr Aherns evidence that he had saved sterling towards the purchase of an investment property in Manchester. 3. Because Mr Ahern failed to truthfully account as to the true source of the Stg 15,500 cash, the Tribunal was unable to determine the source of those funds. THE B/T ACCOUNT 1. The Tribunal was satisfied that the B/T account was opened by Mr Tim Collins in 1989 for purposes, other than the upkeep and maintenance of St. Lukes, Drumcondra. The Tribunal entirely rejected the evidence of Mr Collins, Mr Joe Burke and Mr Ahern as to the claimed purpose of this account. 2. The Tribunal rejected in its entirety the evidence of Mr Collins and Mr Burke (and the belief expressed by Mr Ahern) as to the reason and purpose for the withdrawal of IR20,000 from the B/T account in August 1994. The Tribunal was satisfied that the purpose for which this cash sum was withdrawn in August 1994 was unconnected with any intended repair or refurbishment of St. Lukes. The true purpose of this IR20,000 cash withdrawal remains unexplained. 3. The Tribunal was satisfied that the IR20,000 lodged to the B/T account on 26 October 1994 (and exchanged into Irish punts from a sterling sum of 20,000) was not a refund of monies earlier withdrawn from that account. The source of the Stg 20,000 which funded this lodgement remains unexplained. 4. The Tribunal believed that Mr Ahern and Mr Collins were in a position to accurately account for the origins of substantial lodgements of IR19,000 (being the bulk of the proceeds of an IR20,000 cheque) and the IR10,000 cash made to the B/T account on 25 August 1992 and 18 July 1995 respectively but did not do so.

5. The Tribunal believed that the B/T account was operated (at least until 1997) for the personal benefit of Mr Ahern and Mr Collins. 44 BERESFORD AVENUE, DRUMCONDRA 1. The Tribunal was satisfied that Beresford was never beneficially owned by Mr Wall or intended to be beneficially owned by him. The property was beneficially owned by Mr Ahern between 1995 and 1997, and was legally and beneficially owned by Mr Ahern from 1997 onwards. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of Mr Ahern and Mr Wall which indicated otherwise. 2. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Will executed by Mr Wall on 6 June 1996, and which bequeathed Beresford to Mr Ahern (and in the event that Mr Ahern pre-deceased Mr Wall, to Mr Aherns daughters) was a mechanism designed to provide Mr Ahern with a degree of asset protection in respect of the property. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Will was, in all the circumstances, evidence of Mr Aherns beneficial ownership of the property and it believed that Mr Ahern was aware of its existence from its date of execution by Mr Wall, contrary to the position maintained by Mr Ahern in his evidence to the Tribunal. MR TOM GILMARTINS ALLEGATION THAT MR OWEN OCALLAGHAN INFORMED HIM THAT HE HAD PAID IR80,000 (IN TOTAL) TO MR BERTIE AHERN, AND THE EVIDENCE OF MR EAMON DUNPHY. 1. The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Dunphy gave his evidence honestly, and in the belief that it was true and accurate. It rejected any suggestion (to the extent that it was made) that Mr Dunphy embellished or otherwise altered his evidence to the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Dunphy, in his sworn evidence to the Tribunal, accurately described the words and terminology used by Mr OCallaghan in discussions between the two men relating to Mr Ahern, Mr Reynolds, and the issue of the granting of tax designation for the Golden Island development in Athlone. 3. The Tribunal accepted that the inferences taken by Mr Dunphy in relation to information provided to him by Mr OCallaghan were, as described by Mr Dunphy, honestly drawn, and were, in the Tribunals view, reasonable inferences for him to have taken, having regard to the words spoken by Mr OCallaghan and the context in which they were spoken. 4. The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr OCallaghan made verbal statements to Mr Dunphy which by their ordinary meaning conveyed the following: That Mr Ahern had been given an inducement and was taken care of by Mr OCallaghan in return for a promised favour. That Mr OCallaghan gave inducements to politicians

 That Mr OCallaghan found it necessary to engage in corrupt activity in order to successfully develop property in Dublin. 5. The fact that Mr OCallaghan was found to have disclosed information to Mr Dunphy which, at least implied or inferred that Mr OCallaghan had corruptly paid money to Mr Ahern was corroborative of Mr Gilmartins allegations that Mr OCallaghan had, likewise, disclosed information to him in which he stated or implied that he, Mr OCallaghan, had paid money to Mr Ahern in return for favours from Mr Ahern in connection with matters associated with the Quarryvale project.
6. The Tribunal was satisfied from its consideration of the evidence of Mr

Gilmartin and of Mr Dunphy, that Mr OCallaghan was prepared to divulge, and did indeed divulge, to third parties, with whom he was at the time closely associated in the Quarryvale project (and which included the Neilstown Stadium project), information which expressly or by implication suggested that he, Mr OCallaghan, had made corrupt payments to politicians, including Mr Ahern.
7. The Tribunal accepted Mr Gilmartins evidence that he had been informed by

Mr OCallaghan that he had paid sums of IR30,000 and IR50,000 to Mr Ahern. The Tribunal also acknowledged that Mr Gilmartin did not offer this evidence to the Tribunal as proof that any such money had in fact been paid by Mr OCallaghan or received by Mr Ahern.

8. The Tribunal accepted Mr Gilmartins evidence that following a Barkhill board

meeting in AIB, Mr Gilmartin advised him that he had paid IR30,000 to Mr Ahern in return for an assurance that the Blanchardstown development would not receive tax designation status. The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr OCallaghan had indeed been advised by Mr Ahern, the then Minister for Finance, at a meeting on 24 March 1994 that neither the Blanchardstown or Quarryvale developments would receive tax designation. The Tribunal also believed it to have been quite possible that Mr OCallaghan received a similar assurance on an unknown date considerably prior to 24 March 1994, and that the reason for Mr OCallaghans again raising the issue with Mr Ahern on 24 March 1994 arose from a concern on his part that Mr Ray MacSharrys then imminent appointment to the board of Green Property plc (the developers of Blanchardstown) might precipitate a reversal of Mr Aherns earlier stated position that Blanchardstown would not receive tax designation. 9. While Mr Gilmartins evidence in relation to his allegation that Mr OCallaghan had informed him that he, Mr OCallaghan, had paid Mr Ahern IR50,000 in order to ensure that the corporation owned lands in Quarryvale were not sold to Green Property plc, was considerably less specific that his evidence in relation to the alleged IR30,000 payment, and was probably mistaken in terms of aspects of its detail because of poor recollection on Mr Gilmartins part, the Tribunal was nevertheless satisfied the Mr Gilmartin was provided with information by Mr OCallaghan which led him to understand that Mr OCallaghan had indeed advised him that he had paid IR50,000 to Mr Ahern. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS RELATING TO THE TRIBUNALS INQUIRY INTO

MR BERTIE AHERNS FINANCES 1. Those findings of fact which are adverse to Mr Ahern (and on occasion to others) clearly demonstrated that important aspects of Mr Aherns evidence (and the evidence of others) were rejected by the Tribunal. Much of the explanation provided by Mr Ahern as to the source of the substantial funds identified and inquired into in the course of the Tribunals public hearings was deemed by the Tribunal to have been untrue. 2. The purpose of the Tribunals inquiries into Mr Aherns finances was to identify the sources of substantial lodgements and movements of funds into Mr Aherns bank accounts, and other accounts associated with him, within a specific time period, and by so doing establish or exclude a connection between any of these funds, and Mr OCallaghan, either directly or indirectly. Regrettably, the Tribunals inquiries were rendered inconclusive for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph. Because the Tribunal has been unable to identify the true sources of the funds in question, it could not therefore determine whether or not the payment to Mr Ahern of all or any of the funds in question were in fact made by, or initiated or arranged, directly or indirectly by Mr OCallaghan, or by any other identifiable third party or parties.