
1 0 July 2016
NEWS
T
he charging of another former NAMA
official with the leaking of confiden-
tial information has added to the
already significant pressure on the
agency’s chairman and chief execu-
tive and on finance minister, Michael Noonan,
to concede an independent inquiry into its
activities.
Paul Pugh (56), from Clontarf Road in Dublin,
is charged with disclosing confidential informa-
tion contrary to Section 7 of the 2009 National
Assets Management Agency Act. Detective Gar-
rett Lynch of the Garda Bureau of Fraud
Investigation told the District Court that Pugh
provided information about McCabe Builders
(UK) Ltd to a named individual at Connaught
and Whitehall Capital UK Ltd in June 2012.
John McCabe was one of Ireland’s top-rung
developers until he crashed with debts of more
than €230 million in loans and guarantees
being taken over by NAMA. McCabe built the
Abington development for the rich and famous
in Malahide, in north Dublin. His wife Mary hit
the headlines in February 2013 after a receiver
was appointed over her €150,000, 8.5 carat
‘Brussels sprout’ sized diamond ring and other
jewellery when she failed to discharge some
€20m in judgments obtained by the agency.
NAMA claimed that Mary McCabe with an
address at Rath Stud, Ashbourne, County
Meath owes it the proceeds from the sale of a
€20m property in Park Lane in 2012.
John McCabe previously featured as a
member of the Maple 10, one of the ten custom-
ers of Anglo Irish Bank who purchased a 10%
stake in the bank from Sean Quinn in 2008 in a
desperate attempt to save the rapidly collaps-
ing institution.
Paul Pugh is now accused of leaking informa-
tion about McCabes’ distressed assets while he
worked with NAMA. On the day of his arrest on
Thursday 23rd June, Wexford TD, Mick Wallace
told the Dáil that Pugh was “an individual who
came onto our radar long before now”.
Pugh is currently listed as a director of Con-
naught and Whitehall Capital Ltd. (not the UK
entity named above) with an address at Santry
in north Dublin, along with Swiss-based Irish
businessman, Michael Maye.
His arrest follows the conviction of another
former NAMA employee, Enda Farrell, who
recently received a two-year suspended sen-
tence after pleading guilty to a number of
similar offences of passing confidential infor-
mation from NAMA to external interests.
While these incidents have been embarrass-
ing for NAMA chairman Frank Daly and chief
executive Brendan McDonagh they are in the
halfpenny place compared to intensifying con-
troversy over the 2014 sale of the agency’s
Northern Ireland loan book, Project Eagle.
Only an extraordinary U-turn by Fianna Fáil
saved the government, and Noonan in particu-
lar, from acute discomfort when a motion by
Wallace calling for a Commission of Inquiry into
the Project Eagle purchase and sale was
defeated in the Dáil on 29th June last.
Only days earlier, Wallace had been person-
ally assured by Micheál Martin, of his party’s
support for the motion, not surprising since it
was almost word for word identical to one
unsuccessfully put by Fianna Fáil before the
house last November.
Clearly, the unwritten or at least unpublished
agreement between the two largest parties pre-
cludes supporting dangerous motions which
might force Noonan to explain why he author-
ised NAMA to proceed with the €1.241 billion
sale to US fund Cerberus despite information
that the tender process had been compromised
by “fee arrangements” involving key players
connected to the agency in Northern Ireland.
In early 2014, Noonan was informed that
another US fund, Pimco, had disclosed to NAMA
that it had agreed to make payments totalling
€15 million to a number of people who assisted
it during the tender process including Frank
Cushnahan a former member of the agency’s
Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC).
It subsequently emerged that Stg£7m had
Wall aces it
again on Nama
Intrepid Wexford TD alleges Nama advisor,
Cushnahan, was paid £5m by Cerberus for
confidential information
by Frank Connolly
What in God’s name would
Cushnahan be disposing
of if there was nothing
to dispose of? Why was
he entitled to £5 million
if he had no confidential
information about the
quality of the properties? It
does not stack up