Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
14 March/April 2022
I
N the chairman of ISME (the small and medium enterprise
lobbyist), Seamus Butler, wildly alleed that – in my capacity as CEO of
ISME - I’d been involved in fraud of the EU by submittin unpaid invoices
for payment of EU rants. In fact, unknown to me and after ISME had
claimed the rant, the EU chaned its rules, to prohibit what was
formerly standard practice – its own acceptance of such unpaid invoices -
across the EU.
It was that chane that ave credibility to the alleation. Butler and others
in ISME wanted to et rid of me, since I adamantly opposed ISME’s involve-
ment in the social partnership process which was becomin central to its
operations. Butler’s supporters were actually in private discussions with
Mary Harney, Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, concernin her decision
to include ISME in the partnership process despite my opposition. I had not
been informed.
Since I had the overwhelmin support of the members and I had refused
the inducement of £,-plus to resin, ettin rid of me was not oin
to be easy. Butler, however, was willin to o to considerable lenths to
destroy my character and thus directweaken my authority. So, as explicitly
threatened, Butler implemented threats to ensure that I would “never work
in this country aain” by makin “poor controls and manaement…. look
like fraud”.
To that end he conspired in to brin phoney complaints to the Garda.
Nevertheless in , despite the prior faxed threats and to everyone’s
The State, led by
Micheál Martin, lied
and destroyed me
By Frank Mulcahy
Martin said he’d correct his statements
implicating me in fraud after the EU showed
that far from committing fraud I’d been set up
by his department, but didn’t a) to protect a
party colleague and b) to protect the exchequer
from a maladministration claim. Indeed the
State eventually effected a useless Inquiry
process to cover the scandal up
NEWS
Fax from accountants confirming ISME leaders Hynes, Hobdell and
O’Loinsigh threatened in 1998 that “Frank Mulcahy’s name will be
blackened, he will never work in this country again”.
surprise, his alleations were treated seriously and forwarded to the DPP.
In the end no prosecution was recommended. Two years later, after an inter
-
nal ISME report concluded that Butler had justified his alleations by
discreetly corruptin previously audited accounts, I endeavoured to enae
March/April 2022 15
Deprtment of Finnce briefing note
confirms tht, fter deprtment lobbied, it
EU Commission committed to not replying
to further correspondence from Mulchy
with the Garda. Respondin, the Garda authorities declined to accept a copy
of that report. They dismissed my complaint of audit corruption as
“impossible”.
In Micheál Martin as the Minister for Enterprise, when replyin to
Deputy Ruairi Quinn and others, emphatically endorsed the basis of Seamus
Butler’s complaint. The Department wrote that its Minister was actin in
“absolute” ood faith. We had no reason to doubt that. Further we knew of
no relationship between the Department, its Minister and Seamus Butler
which miht have explained that endorsement.
However, in after we established further unsettlin evidence ,
Assistant Commissioner of the Garda, the later discredited Martin Callinan,
undertook to reinvestiate the alleations levelled by Butler. He ave a “per-
sonal uarantee” as to the thorouhness of that reinvestiation. Time
passed. It proved that Callinan was not a ood bet on a personal
uarantee.
In November , when no investiation ensued, I made technically
unauthorised email contact with the civilian forensic accountant to the
Garda, Dave McManus. He was straihtforward. He endorsed what ISME
had concluded in its private report in . That was damnin of his Garda
colleaues and particularly of Martin Callinan’s stated position.
I immediately wrote to Callinan notin that the Garda’s forensic account
-
ant’s contradiction amounted in law to admission that the Garda had
enaed in collusion with Butler.
However, when I met the investiatin ardaí in December they
extraordinarily denied any contact with their forensic accountant. Immedi-
ately after that meetin the forensic accountant was sent to Coventry, my
emails were blocked by the Garda and I was prevented from ever aain con
-
tactin the forensic accountant or any ocer by their direct email address.
Despite repeat enquiries by Assistant Commissioner Noirin O’ Sullivan, by
the GSOC and in by the Minister for Justice, the Garda adamantly
denied the block. This interdiction lasted ten years until . This was
accepted recently in his report by Jude McMahon, appointed.
Faced with an inexplicable wall of hostility by aents of the State, I eventu
-
ally turned in despair to the EU Commission for clarity. It was then that I slowly
pieced toether the tale of how the Department of Finance had been locked
in a battle with the European Commission since because of the EU
demand that the Irish exchequer “repay” over one billion euros in European
rants. That repayment demand arose from the Department of Enterprise’s
“systematic maladministration” of EU rants since and the“overlappin”
drawdown (EU code for double charin) of EU Cohesion funds.
In / the Department of Finance endeavoured to prevent the EU
Commission from communicatin directly with me [top riht] Memo. Indeed
they recorded that they had secured that commitment. However, as if in a
studied response, three months later the EU Commission wrote and dis-
closed that the culpable party (in respect of Butler’s alleation) had been
the Department of Enterprise, itself. The EU Commission specifically exon
-
erated me. In a second email the Commission oered to ive evidence to
Martin Callinan and any relevant Irish Authority. Here’s the email:
“From: Brian Gray <Brian.Gray@ec.europa.eu>
To: mulcahyfm@eircom.net
Cc: ruairi quinn <ruairi.quinn@oireachtas.ie>, eamon ilmore
Sent: Mon, Jul :: + (IST)
Subject: RE: Brian Gray Dir General, Int Audit Services, EU Comm
Dear Mr Mulcahy, I confirm my availability to reply to any questions your
interlocutors may have on the requirements of EC reulations as reards the
declaration of expenditure of structural funds. Kind reards,
Brian Gray”.
That oer has, to this day, never been availed of, presumably because the
implications were so unacceptable. The EU revelations meant that some
party had knowinly used the parliamentary process to authenticate But-
ler’s lies, the eect of which was to deprive me of my ood name and
employment. Deputy Ruairi Quinn was the first to reconise the
implications.
In March Quinn contacted my chief adviser, the former ISME
Letter on behlf of Quinn (by his Chief of Stff)
showing he’d wit for Secretry Generl to retire nd
stop blocking Mulchy’s exonortion
chairman Don Curry. Ruairi Quinn oered and we areed that Deputy Quinn
would have the state make a meaninful apoloy in exchane for which I
undertook to foreo the leal route. The followin year as Minister for Edu
-
cation he reularly reconfirmed his intent. He emailed that the obstacle was
the then servin Secretary General. He was waitin on his retirement before
havin my name cleared [Immediatley above].
On bein advised of Deputy Quinn’s intent, the former Minister Micheál
Martin asked to meet me. At that encounter he confirmed that Butler’s alle
-
ation never had a basis: that his parliamentary replies were wron. He
claimed to have been lied to by his ocials. He declared himself “livid”. He
undertook to correct his Dail record and the damae done to me. I was
elated. I left that meetin full of confidence. I remained inorant of any rela-
tionship between Deputy Martin and my accuser.
Two weeks later Seamus Butler suddenly resurfaced. In a series of
16 March/April 2022
From: Frank J. Bergin <FJBergin@dataprotection.ie>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020, 10:45
Subject: RE: C -20-6-511
To: <
frankmulcahy101@gmail.com>
Dear Mr Mulcahy,
I refer to your complaint with Ms Deirdre Gillane.
Ms Gillane has indicated via the Data Protection Officer for Fianna Fail,
that while she has worked in in multiple capacities for Fianna Fáil and
Micheál Martin TD, she has not been a data controller in any of those
roles. The relevant data controller for the matter in question is Deputy
Martin.
In light of the fact that this matter is being dealt with under our
reference C-19-5-400, we will now proceed to close this file.
Yours sincerely, Frank J. Bergin Case Officer
From: Frank J. Bergin <FJBergin@dataprotection.ie>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021, 08:08
Subject: RE: C -19-5-400
To: <frankmulcahy101@gmail.com>
Dear Mr Mulcahy,
I refer to your complaints with Fianna Fáil, Deputy Michael Martin and Ms
Deirdre Gilliane.
We specifically raised the the issue of the meeting which took place on 7
March 2012 with Deputy Martin and Ms Gilliane asking four specific
question to which Fianna Fáil have replied with the following
1. Please indicate if the meeting of 7 March 2012 took place in Lenister House.
Ans / This meeting did go ahead. Deputy Micheál Martin and Ms Deirdre
Gilliane attended the meeting.
2. if so, were there notes/minutes of the meeting taken
Ans / Handwritten notes were taken
3. if minutes were taken, who took them
Ans / Ms Deirdre Gillane
4. the present whereabouts of the minutes, if taken
Ans / The notes taken by Ms Deirdre Gillane were not retained.
…………
I trust this clarifies the position.
Yours sincerely, Frank J. Bergin Case Officer
From: Frank J. Bergin <FJBergin@dataprotection.ie>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020, 10:45
Subject: RE: C -20-6-511
To: <frankmulcahy101@gmail.com>
Dear Mr Mulcahy,
I refer to your complaint with Ms Deirdre Gillane.
Ms Gillane has indicated via the Data Protection Officer for Fianna Fail,
that while she has worked in in multiple capacities for Fianna Fáil and
Micheál Martin TD, she has not been a data controller in any of those
roles. The relevant data controller for the matter in question is Deputy
Martin.
In light of the fact that this matter is being dealt with under our
reference C-19-5-400, we will now proceed to close this file.
Yours sincerely, Frank J. Bergin Case Officer
From: Frank J. Bergin <FJBergin@dataprotection.ie>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021, 08:08
Subject: RE: C -19-5-400
To: <
frankmulcahy101@gmail.com>
Dear Mr Mulcahy,
I refer to your complaints with Fianna Fáil, Deputy Michael Martin and Ms
Deirdre Gilliane.
We specifically raised the the issue of the meeting which took place on 7
March 2012 with Deputy Martin and Ms Gilliane asking four specific
question to which Fianna Fáil have replied with the following
1. Please indicate if the meeting of 7 March 2012 took place in Lenister House.
Ans / This meeting did go ahead. Deputy Micheál Martin and Ms Deirdre
Gilliane attended the meeting.
2. if so, were there notes/minutes of the meeting taken
Ans / Handwritten notes were taken
3. if minutes were taken, who took them
Ans / Ms Deirdre Gillane
4. the present whereabouts of the minutes, if taken
Ans / The notes taken by Ms Deirdre Gillane were not retained.
…………
I trust this clarifies the position.
Yours sincerely, Frank J. Bergin Case Officer
ISME’s own solicitor’s letter, obtained by Mulcahy, confirms the
£100,000 inducement from Butler (its chairman) to Mulcahy
(its CEO). Yet in March 2013 Butler denied that inducement,
dishonestly dismissing it as “incredible and a blatant lie”
However, inevitably it transpired, as explained at the outset by the des-
inated Inquiry Jude Patrick McMahon, who bears no responsibility for the
failure, that the “terms of reference” prevented the Inquiry from investiat-
in that central complaint of “collusion” between the Department, the EU,
politicians and others. Before any hearins, Jude McMahon noted that I
would not be happy with the result of his Inquiry which was published in
December last; and he was riht.
Nevertheless, we continued to press Fianna Fáil to release the one set of
relevant minutes. It took three years. In Auust Ms Gillane informed
the Data Commissioner that the Taoiseach was the “FF data controller” for
the minutes in question - just for the minutes in question! [see top imae
below] Presumably they hoped that the date commissioner would not pursue
a busy Taoiseach. It was a bizarre development. Nevertheless, the Data Com-
missioner pursued the Taoiseach for access. It took a further nine months
before a reply was forthcomin.
abusive faxes he doubled down on his alleations. He denied that he had
ever proered me £, to resin, concludin with the emailed boast “I
am answerable to nobody” [second imae below].
In April the Taoiseach confirmed the meetin and that Ms Gillane
had recorded the minutes. However, the excuse then oered for non -dis
-
closure was that he had had the record shredded. It was extraordinary. [see
email below]
That latest claim itself raises many more fundamental questions, chief of
which is whether the Taoiseach is now claimin that the endorsement he
ave to Councillor Butler’s alleations, in his parliamentary replies in ,
was and is in fact correct; is he denyin the precise testimony of the EU Com-
mission? Is he exculpatin Callinan’s dishonesty?
The State, the overnment, multiple Ministers for Enterprise, and the
Department of, Enterprise, the Garda, a State Inquiry: all compromised. The
media have done little better in exposin the scandal. The only hope is
Micheál Martin takin responsibility, or bein forced to take it.
Justice lon delayed is justice lon denied and I’m beinnin to et old.
Several months later Deputy Martin reneed on his commitment. He
claimed that the Ombudsman had excused him of the need to act. It took
another two years before I learned by chance that Mr Butler had been oper
-
atin as FF Councillor Seamus Butler since . So there was a
connection.
Subsequently, in the Ombudsman wrote and denied what Deputy
Martin had attributed to him. Neither he nor his predecessor had reviewed
the evidence that had caused Deputy Martin to be seeminly so arieved
about his department’s lonstandin dishonesty. Clearly Deputy Martin had
no valid excuse. He should have acted to correct his parliamentary replies.
In May just when the collusion of the State and its aents was in
daner of bein exposed by ex-Taoisih, Government Ministers and a party
leader, the State established a Statutory Inquiry. I was aain elated.
We considered that Deputy Martin’s explicit admission that he had been
lied to by his ocials would be central to that Inquiry. Consequently, under
the data protection acts we requested access to the relevant minutes dated
March which his Fianna Fáil consiliere, chief of sta Deirdre Gillane,
had recorded. We intended to ive them to the Inquiry.
Butler’s emils to Mulchy (nd his collegue Curry):
“I m nswerble to nobody”.
Mrtin’s Chief of Stff hd designted him the dt
controller for key minutes
Dt Protection Commission confirms the shredding of
minutes which hd indicted Mrtin’s support for Mulchy
