Two businessmen in dispute with AIB over more than €6 million in property debts say the bank forged their signatures on loan documents, the High Court heard yesterday.
Earlier this year, State-controlled AIB appointed EY as receivers to properties in Ireland and Britain belonging to businessmen Brendan McCleary and Brendan Hamilton on foot of a series of loans the bank claims are overdue.
However, the High Court heard yesterday that both men have made a number of allegations of fraud against the bank, including that their signatures were forged on documents that reduced the loans’ terms to five years from 20. As the loans are not overdue, they say, they are challenging the bank’s right to appoint receivers to the properties.
Their claims centre on more than €6 million borrowed jointly and individually. AIB is contesting the allegations. Mr Justice Brian McGovern admitted the case to the commercial court yesterday.
Mr McCleary and Mr Hamilton, who are business partners, have reported the alleged fraud to the Garda and to the London Metropolitan Police. Both forces are in various stages of following up those complaints.
The businessmen also commissioned handwriting expert Stephen Cosslett, of Key Forensic Services, a British firm contracted to a number of UK police forces, to analyse the documents they dispute signing. He found that in the case of both men there is "strong evidence" that they were not responsible for signing a number of the disputed documents.
Mr McCleary has also taken action in the UK, which is still ongoing. He was unable to get an order overturning the receivers’ appointment as he was not able to give an undertaking on damages.
An affidavit sworn by Mr McCleary relating to that case, states that, in 2005, AIB agreed to provide him with an overall facility of €2.3 million. This consolidated new and existing loans used to buy properties in his native Monaghan, Dublin and London.
He had drawn down €2.1 million by December 2005. His existing loans were for 20 years and Mr McCleary says the new facility was for that period of time, with the interest fixed for the first four years.
In November 2010, the bank wrote seeking the loan’s repayment. He then found that it had facility letters dated February 21st, 2006 and September 27th, 2007 – that he did not remember signing – which state the loan was due by February 2010.
Mr McCleary says he believes these were “forged within the AIB”. At the same time, another internal bank document, indicating that the debt was used in a derivative trade of some description, states that the term was 20 years.
