News

10 March/April 2022 T his is a tale of greed, destruction, violence, corruption and betrayal. The Quinn Group business employing 7000 with profits of €500m/year has turned into a husk of itself with only 800 employees and meagre profits with its construction division scandal- ously losing money. Conventional wisdom blames the recklessness of Sean Quinn but there was a further betrayal of the community that, reflecting national indif- ference to the border counties, has gone untold. Keep your eye on who was in charge as the Quinn Group has disintegrated! The name of the Quinn Group was changed to Aventas in 2013 to Quinn Industrial Holdings in 2015 and to Mannok in 2020. Along the way it sold o Quinn Glass, Quinn Plastics and Quinn Radia- tors abroad. The sale of Quinn Packaging did not complete. However, the first big event that should detain us is that on 30 March 2010, following an application by the Central Bank of Ireland, the High Court appointed joint provisional administrators to Quinn Insurance Limited, “Quinn was our champion when the State did nothing” By Michael Smith A Crossborder Community feels so betrayed that it’s issued legal proceedings against the part successors to the Quinn Group – QBRC The nme of he Quinn Group ws chnged o Avens in 2013 o Quinn Indusril Holdings in 2015 nd o Mnnok in 2020. Along he wy i sold off Quinn Glss, Quinn Plsics nd Quinn Rdiors brod. The sle of Quinn Pckging did no complee the first manifestation of regulatory stringency that has now been playing out for 12 years. Then, in April 2011, a share receiver was appointed over the whole Quinn Group, by Anglo Irish Bank Group (then owned by the State), to which the Quinn Group owed over €2.8 billion. A receiver took control of the Quinn family’s equity interest in the Quinn Group (Quinn had divested himself some years earlier), replacing them with a board of outside professionals. This served the interests of bondholders who now owned 25% but had 75% voting right, with the balance held by the State. Formerly the bondholders interest had been contingent not a shareholding and they technically had no voting rights. That is the principal grievance of Sean Quinn – he accepts that he had scandalously over-invested in con- tracts for dierence (CFDs – suspended payments, i.e. agreements to exchange the dierence in value of a financial instrument between the time at which a con- tract is opened and it is closed) but feels the situation could have been salvaged if nerves in government had been held and the bondholders not indulged. The Quinn Group and its advisors considered it could repay the €2.8 billion it owed including the €2.34 billion it owed Anglo for share support. Others say that would have depended on retaining institutional confidence that he had done a great deal to lose. Anglo and Quinn had been in discussions to avoid a legal dispute over the way Quinn had supported Anglo’s shares, with awareness from State regulators that the State has disingenuously always tried to deny. But the plug was pulled. NEWS March/April 2022 11 Quinn was declared bankrupt in the Republic on 16 January 2012. The State’s motivation may or may not have been primarily the welfare of the local community and its jobs. But it compromised on legality. A notable delinquency was ignoring the outrageous actions of Anglo Irish Bank. Ann Nolan, the Second Secretary General at the Department of Finance with responsibility for financial stability/risk management gave evi- dence in 2015 to a case taken by the Quinn family against IBRC, and Sean Quinn and former Quinn Group directors. The family had had a 25 per cent stake in Anglo, held through the CFDs. It later converted this into a 15 per cent stake in the bank, using bank finance, partly channelled through Quinn Direct Insurance, while other long-term customers, of the bank (the Maple 10) used further loans from the bank to buy the other 10 per cent. This con – version had the eect of preventing a flood of shares coming onto the market. But it was ultimately illegal and improper to facilitate the wind-down of Anglo and the Quinn Group without resolving this extraordinary illegality for it was predictable that the Quinns would get some very substantial ben – efit if it could be shown that their own delinquencies were known to the regulatory section of the Department of Finance, the State. Nolan stated [above] that a draft letter dated 3 February 2009 from the then chairman of Anglo, Donal O’Connor, to Minister for Finance Brian Leni – han stated: “As requested, I enclose a report on the extent of lending for the purposes of share acquisitions and contracts for dierences generally and Anglo shares in particular”. However, she also drew attention to an alterna – tive version of the same letter, dated the next day which was amended to read: “The total extent of lending by the Bank for the purposes of acquiring publicly quoted shares is €1.767bn (See Annex 1). We do not lend for the purpose of taking positions in contracts for dierences. Of this total, €918.6m relates to lending for the purpose of acquiring shares in Anglo Irish Bank”. The letter was changed to omit a reference that would show the Depart – ment of Finance knowing in 2009 that Quinn Group had a CFD position. There were a lot of improprieties associated with the Quinn Group, espe – cially related to the support of Anglo’s share price. The problem was that Anglo had benefited from Quinn’s support and indirectly therefore so had the state. If the support was illegal and had been approved by Anglo and the State then the State might ultimately have to suer some of the loss that it in the end seemed determined to dump on Quinn himself and his group. The Central Bank came to a weird, presumably embarrassed, settlement with Quinn Direct Insurance, the

Villager

Try Harder Garda

March/April 2022 31Infamous Death-Squad Killer Diesserious shooting incidents, but he has escaped justice once and for all. He goes to his grave with many of the UK’s secrets regarding its dirty war in Ireland.That suits the British government and its armed forces but leaves victims and survivors bereft of truth and justice.Clive Graham Williams (British Army number 24031479) received a decorated soldier’s funeral, having risen to the rank of Major follow–ing an exchange with the Royal Military Police (RMP) in Britain and the Royal Australian Corps of Military Police (RACMP) in the 1980s.Lieutenant Colonel Craig Kingston of the Aus–tralian Army gave a cofn-side oration at Williams’ funeral:“Taf has many RMP highlights and the most notable being the award of the Military Medal when serving… in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Today’s not the occasion to detail the circum–stances of how Taf was awarded the Military Medal, however it is the day to detail why a AN INFAMOUS killer, wanted in connection with a series of murders and attempted murders of Irish civilians in Belfast in 1972, has died.Clive Graham Williams, or Taf as he known to his fellow gang members, died just before Christmas.Despite proof of their involvement in serial mur–ders and attempted murders, the British courts brought neither Williams nor any members of his gang members to justice.The reason is simple. They had a licence to kill; and killed Irish civilians for the British state.Clive Graham Williams was a leading member of Britain’s Military Reaction Force (MRF), an extra-legal, covert, ofensive British Army unit which stalked the streets of Belfast in the early 1970s.In 2020, I collated archival evidence from secret British military logs which proved that Wil–liams and his death-squad were guilty of a litany of unprovoked and vicious attacks on unarmed civilians, including young teenagers. I presented this evidence in a report for the charity Paper Trail (Legacy Archive Research) which we then submitted to an independent investigative police team working under former English police Chief Constable, Jon Boucher.Only in June 2020 did the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) refer fles on seven former MRF soldiers to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) although the British justice system has failed to hold any to account yet. Williams’ name had to be on one of those fles as I proved he was directly responsible for several By Ciarán MacAirtTaff’s secretive Military Medal was for nefarious murders in Northern IrelandThe reason for Lieutenant Colonel Kingston’s tasteless nudge-nudge-wink-wink about Williams’ medal citation may be because it covered the period when Williams and his death-squad were shooting unarmed civilians on the streets of BelfastMilitary Medal is bestowed on an individual. It is awarded to personnel for bravery in battle, for acts of gallantry and devotion, to duty under fre… Taf did not speak often about his medal and many who knew him in later years had no idea about his past, such was his humility”.Normally, the circumstances of the award of such a prestigious Military Medal would be the centre-piece of any British military commemora–tion, but, as I discovered over a decade ago, Williams’ Military Medal was recorded in the London Gazette of 3 October 1972.The reason for Lieutenant Colonel Kingston’s tasteless nudge-nudge-wink-wink about Wil–liams’ MM citation may be because it covered the period when Williams and his death-squad were shooting unarmed civilians on the streets of Belfast.Williams did not talk about the circumstances of his MM as it would have left him open to pros–ecution for serial murders and attempted murders. In my published research, I redacted his name and the other MRF shooters named in the fles to ensure I facilitated the work of the families’ legal teams.On 6 May 1972, then Sergeant Williams is named in relation to a report of the MRF sighting and fring upon 3 alleged gunmen beside Oliver Plunkett School in West Belfast. That area of Glen Road was a favoured hunting ground for Williams and his death squad.POLITICS 32March/April 2022The 39 Brigade Commander’s Diary records that the MRF fred 24 rounds from a submachine gun and claimed “1 hit defnite”. It alleged that the gunmen had a rife and 2 pistols, and fred two rounds in return. [See image i above]Williams and his unit had not hit a gunman. Wil–liams had just shot and badfrsly injured an 18-year-old unarmed teenager.The following night, an MRF patrol in the same area alleged it was fred on again and that they returned fre, claiming one defnite hit. [See image 2 above]. Lies again. The MRF had blasted and nearly killed a 15-year-old boy who was walk–ing home from the local disco.A few nights later, just after midnight, 13th May 1972, the MRF attacked local residents in nearby streets minutes apart. The neighbours were man–ning local vehicle checkpoints to protect the area from attack. [See image 3 above].A teenager was shot by the MRF whilst alight–ing from a taxi at one checkpoint in Slievegallion and a few minutes later the MRF alleged that it shot at seven gunmen in Riverdale. Again, there were no gunmen, just a group of local unarmed civilians – easy targets for the Brit–ish Army death squad. The MRF shot fve men, murdering one. Patrick McVeigh was a married man with six children.The British Army admitted no responsibility for the shooting but informed the media that there was a gun battle which was disputed by the local parish priest. Then, British Army PR told the media that the attempted mass murder was “an apparent motiveless crime” and only admitted it involved its troops many weeks later.At the time of his death, Clive Graham Williams was wanted for questioning for this murder and attempted mass murder too.He escaped justice for another attempted mass murder of unarmed civilians a few weeks later, although he was questioned and brought before the court, albeit a pro-state British court that was heavily weighted against the innocent civilians.Around midday on 22nd June 1972, Williams and his MRF death squad attacked the bus termi–nus on the Glen Road just

28March/April 2022EnRight, twicelanguage”. Content andtone. And also found that “Mr Enright did not act in good faith”.Nevertheless by 30 in favour and 1 abstention [Councillor Pat Barden] the Councillors voted to “note [SIPO’s] Report and to take no further action in the matter”. Director of Services Eamonn Hore then made a statement on behalf of the Management Team “strongly supporting the Chief Executive Mr. Enright”.It is clear that legal advice to the Council, which perhaps improperly was not minuted, was ofered by its law agent who, being responsible to the CEO and normally providing his legal advice – sometimes in the face of the Councillors – must be deemed to lack the necessary independence and to be objectively biased. Section 168 of the Local Government Act provides: “In carrying out their functions it is the duty of every member and every employee of a local authority to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest”.Section 2.2 of the Code of Conduct for Employees provides inter alia: “Local authority employees must maintain the highest standards of integrity by:- • acting in a way which enhances public trust and confdence;• ensuring that their conduct does not bring the integrity of their position or of local government into disrepute. • serving their local authority conscientiously, honestly and impartially”Readers will make up their own minds as to whether the CEO of Wexford County Council, his congratulatory management team and Councillors who applauded him with a standing ovation on the occasion of consideration of a report from SIPO detailing serious ethical contraventions have themselves, in so doing, breached the Ethics Acts and Code of Conduct. contraventions too.On 14 January 2022 the Irish Timesreported that Wexford County Council voted that day not to take any action against Tom Enright following the fndings. They were legally required to consider what action to take. At a special meeting to do so they gave “a standing ovation to Mr Enright at the meeting’s conclusion”.A Statement delivered by Tom Enright that day, went as follows:“I welcome that the Elected Members of Wexford County Council have today decided that no action will be taken in relation to the fndings in the SIPO report published last week.I wish to state again that I regret the tone of the two e-mails sent to South East Radio. However, I was standing up to the radio station who were shown to have breached the Broadcasting Act and who I was informed were acting in a deliberately biased manner against the Council.I am very passionate for the work that Council staf and Councillors do to make County Wexford a better place and some of that passion overfowed into these two e-mails. I cannot thank people enough for their support during this time. I have been overwhelmed and humbled by the large outpouring of support. Hundreds of messages of support, many from people I don’t even know and have never met…”. Skimpy minutes of the Council meeting record that:“The Council invited the Chief Executive to make a submission in respect of the Report…There followed a lengthy discussion to which many members contributed. Members spoke positively about the Chief Executive’s contribution to the Council and to the County, with many expressing the view that Mr. Enright had acted in good faith at all times and in the best interests of the Council.But SIPO had found the CEO’s emails “fell below what is expected of someone in his position, in terms of content, tone, style and In December 2021 the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO), found that Wexford County Council CEO Tom Enright breached the Local Government Act in sending two emails to South East Radio in August 2019 in which he threatened to withdraw Council advertising with the station, during a dispute over the station’s coverage of the Council.SIPO set out detailed particulars of contraventions of the Local Government Act: of section 168 (failing to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest); and of section 169(3) – (failing to be guided by the Code of Conduct for Employees).The three contraventions related to Mr Enright’s emails and the second and third contraventions were premised on the contention that the emails amounted to “putting pressure on the station to alter their broadcasting practices by threatening to withdraw funding from the station”. As regards the frst contravention, SIPO found: “The emails were not the appropriate recourse and amounted to an over-reaction and inappropriate confation of issues on Mr Enright’s part. They fell below what is expected of someone in his position, in terms of content, tone, style and language. The emails amounted to an inappropriate confation of the issues of, on the one hand, the coverage of the Council on South East Radio and Mr Enright’s dispute with Mr Fitzpatrick, and on the other hand, the Council’s commercial relationship with the station. In this way, Mr Enright misused the Council’s position as the station’s primary advertiser, in efect ‘throwing around the weight’ of the Council’s purse. Mr Enright’s conduct in this regard was a serious contravention of the statutory provision. In addition, the Commission fnds that Mr Enright did not act in good faith, nor in the belief that his actions were in accordance with guidelines published or advice given in writing under s. 12 or s. 25 of the Ethics Act”. He was found to have committed the two other NEWSAfter SIPO decided he’d breached the Ethics Acts Wexford County Council CEO Tom Enright and Councillors who ovated him breached Ethics Acts again by disrespecting the decision, and in Enright’s case by denying fndings of bad faith and of impropriety of content not just tone against himBy Michael SmithTom Enright: not good faithWrong

24March/April 2022ON 7 April 2009, the Minister for Finance, the late Fianna Fáil TD Brian Lenihan, introduced the National Assets Management Agency, a “bad bank”.In response to the Ministerial announce–ment, Bank of Ireland assembled an internal ‘Specialist Property Group’ with the task of identify–ing what they could sell to Nama.By that September, this Group collated loans styled as ‘Financial Assets Held for sale’ (AFS). In their announcement, Bank of Ireland stated this AFS was worth €16 billion. This was a valuation already based on better days. This €16 billion toxic loan bundle was responsible for 12% of their total loan book.Brian Lenihan always made it very clear that Nama would not be stumping up on the valuations the par–ticipating banks were citing.In total, these banks quoted roughly €77.4 billion for these toxic AFS lots.When all the dust settled; Nama would pay €31.7 billion. So the banks took a 59% price reduction on their ‘high hopes’ valuations to sell to NAMA. The Financial Statements for the year ending 31.03.2008 contained within the Annual Report pre–sented at the Bank of Ireland AGM earlier that year (July) reported that they had doubled the rate of impairment charges against their loan book; 14% of total loan book value (LBV) at year-end 2007 as against 28% LBV by 2008. So an avid reader of the Bank of Ireland Annual Report and accompanying (Almost) nobody could read the accounts properlyBy Vanessa ForanHow Bank of Ireland opened the gateway to private equity and morphed Ireland into a fertile habitat for cuckoos and vultures Nothing points you to receipts, only to impairments and lossesFinancial Statements would already have know their loan assets were heavily impaired by the time NAMA was instigated.So the 12% of customer lending assets now being treated as a toxic AFS on the same balance sheet, had already thrashed the bank and its shareholders with impairments.Providing for estimated bad debts is a standard practice usually based on specifc events assessed on industry standards: on payment history and on external factors, like market and regulatory condi–tions such as taxation and legislation. What the originating drawdown value of these loans, plus the loss of their expected interest income was before their send-of to Nama, is anyone’s guess, but we do at least know, because PWC confrmed it in their Audit Report, that within domestic lending oper–ations alone, standard debt provisions went from €63 million in 2007 or 14% of total LBV, to o 28% LBV (or €146 million) by year end 2008. You might now also recognise that Bank of Ireland was still aggressively growing its loan book throughout 2008. Then there are additional Impairment Charges. In the Annual Report for the nine months of the year to 31.12.2009, “impairment charges” are mentioned 73 times. Of the total Impairment Charges subtracted from the Loan Books, 55% of them or € 2.778 billion had to be taken from that AFS, leaving it worth €12.235 billion within months of its €16 billion prom–ise, before getting further treatment in the small print of notes.What the drawdown worth of the individual loans NEWSBank of Ireland was vulturised by funds that understood its confusing accounts March/April 2022 25within that AFS might have been when con–tracts were signed between the creditor bank and the borrowing debtor could give rise to some dirty thoughts, because that is the stage and value when agents’ commissions and bankers’ bonuses gets earned. In fact, I would contend that there is a public right to know about these sums, even as a ‘How it started; how it’s going’ exercise. We did after all guarantee and pay for many of the loans, after bonus’ and commissions were paid out.Those loans might have had vastly diferent originating values to where they now ended up, in an impaired toxic bundle quoting €16 billion in September 2009, that dwindled to €12.235 billion by December, that when matched with its year-end Impairment Adjustment, if you managed to follow it through the notes.(pg 204-205 Note 25) was really €9.457 billion.The purpose of fnancial information is to help users make decisions and form opinions.My own confdent opinion is that if all their orig–inal contract drawdown values were combined, then a value of upwards of €40 bil–lion for that €16 billion AFS bundle is not impossible. By the end of 2012, when all the diferent transfer stages were completed, Nama agreed €5.433 billion for this AFS. Paid by using Nama bonds of diferent shapes.None of us would have known this, as none of the consideration is lined out as income earned; or as a beneft receipted from the sale of a material asset, even a toxic held-for-sale asset, on the bank’s 2010 Income Statement. That is the trading period during which the vast bulk of this loan book moved out from Bank of Ireland.No matter who was reading those accounts, this AFS asset was most defnitely material (capable of infuencing a decision) to the fnan–cial position of Bank of Ireland as 12% of Total Lending Assets makes it material, even if based on a March 2009 Balance Sheet position; 12% of total lending assets is self-evidently material. If you were reading those accounts, you might have got the gist of the sales to Nama from the netting and rounding of you can make out within the notes (specifcally 15, & 16, pg 240 YE2010). These all declared the impair–ments and movements in losses, but not the consideration or beneft received. Likewise in the 2010 Cashfow Statement nothing points you to receipts, only to impair–ments and losses. The post-transfer losses of this Bank of Ire–land AFS Loan Bundle were now around €10 billion.There is commentary in notes, small print of course, and there is mention of the loss being limited to €9.45 billion (pg 220 Critical Esti–mates and Judgements: also, pg 251 Note 28). When values are reported in millions and bil–lions, rounding can be signifcant. However, even from the September 2009 market announcement informing the world of Bank of Ireland’s newly prepared €16 billion toxic loan bundle, tracking its