A legal executive at Michael Lynn’s former practice has denied a suggestion from his defence that she is “not telling the truth” when she says she gave a loan of €80,000 to the former solicitor.
Mr Lynn (55), of Millbrook Court, Redcross, Co Wicklow, is on trial accused of the theft of around €27 million from seven financial institutions. He has pleaded not guilty to 21 counts of theft in Dublin between October 23rd, 2006 and April 20th, 2007.
It is the prosecution’s case that Mr Lynn obtained multiple mortgages on the same properties, in a situation where banks were unaware that other institutions were also providing finance. The financial institutions involved are Bank of Ireland, National Irish Bank (later known as Danske Bank), Irish Life and Permanent, Ulster Bank, ACC Bank, Bank of Scotland Ireland and Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS).
The cross-examination of former legal executive with Michael Lynn & Co solicitors, Liz Doyle, continued on Wednesday. Paul Comiskey-O’Keeffe, for Mr Lynn, showed Ms Doyle an email from January 2007 which stated a profit of €2.9 million from a project in Portugal.
A Californian woman in Dublin: ‘Ireland’s not perfect, but I do think as a whole it is moving in the right direction’
Will Andy Farrell’s Lions sabbatical hurt Ireland’s Six Nations chances?
How does VAT in Ireland compare with countries across Europe? A guide to a contentious tax
Prof Donal O’ Shea: ‘The positioning of Ronald McDonald House at the entrance to the new children’s hospital makes me angry’
He put to Ms Doyle that she is “not telling the truth” when she said she gave €80,000 to his client in January 2007 as “he was stuck for money”.
“That was my understanding,” she replied.
Ms Doyle was brought through a series of documents including statements of affairs, emails and memos. She agreed that she was an authorised signatory on cheques for Michael Lynn & Co solicitors, alongside solicitor Fiona McAleenan at one stage.
She agreed with Mr Comiskey-O’Keeffe that Ms McAleenan would have received weekly conveyancing reports compiled in the firm but told him she could not say if they kept Ms McAleenan “abreast” of the position of the conveyancing files.
Referring to her cross-examination on Tuesday, when he put it her that “there was a culture in the firm where people were signing each other’s names on documents”, Ms Doyle accepted that the content of one email referred to her “looking for permission” from Ms McAleenan to sign a letter.
She told Mr Comiskey-O’Keeffe that she could not agree there was “generally a practice that you would sign each other’s signature as the need arose” in the business.
Ms Doyle agreed that another email showed she had “no difficulty” asking Ms McAleenan if she could sign her name. She said Ms McAleenan never said no, but added that she could not recall if her colleague ever refused permission for her to sign her name.
“You are more than capable of speaking up or sending an email when you have any concerns,” Mr Comiskey-O’Keeffe asked after showing Ms Doyle correspondence about the practice’s process for signing cheques.
“That’s what it says on the email,” Ms Doyle said.
Ms Doyle agreed with Mr Comiskey-O’Keeffe that it is her position that Ms McAleenan was made a partner in the firm. She was also shown a proposed organisational chart dated April 2007 which described Ms McAleenan and Mr Lynn as partners in the firm.
Ms Doyle told Mr Comiskey-O’Keeffe she was not aware of the difficulties in her own husband’s company until January 2006 or that Mr Lynn had invested in the business. She said she met Mr Lynn in Portugal “by chance” during a two-year period when she was living there around 2009.
Mr Comiskey-O’Keeffe suggested to Ms Doyle that she was being “untruthful”.
“That’s not the case,” she replied.
The court heard on Tuesday that Irish Life And Permanent took a civil case against Ms Doyle and Ms McAleenan. She told defence counsel on Wednesday that she did not recall the content of text messages between her and Ms McAleenan which were disclosed as part of that case.
Mr Comiskey-O’Keeffe noted that Ms McAleenan alleged in the civil case that Ms Doyle was “part of the fraud”. Ms Doyle said “at that time I was very unwell” and she had “no knowledge of anything at that stage”.
“She made allegations against you and you defended yourself by saying she was aware you were signing her name,” Mr Comiskey-O’Keeffe asked.
“Correct,” Ms Doyle replied, adding that her husband dealt with these proceedings in 2008.
Judge Martin Nolan asked Ms Doyle if it is her evidence that she “never disguised the content” of any document she asked Ms McAleenan to sign.
“I did not, no,” Ms Doyle replied.
The trial continues before Judge Nolan and the jury.