The Mahon tribunal has broken up and will reconvene tomorrow to rule on whether or not Mr Liam Lawlor has complied fully with its orders to provide further documentation about his financial dealings.
Although the former Fianna Fáil TD could technically find himself in the High Court tomorrow facing proceedings that could lead to his fourth term in Mountjoy prison for non-compliance with tribunal orders, he was thrown what could be seen as a lifeline by the chairman, Judge Alan Mahon.
Judge Mahon told Mr Lawlor the three-member panel would deliver its ruling at noon, after which it would break for lunch before resuming its investigation into the Carrickmines module of its inquiry.
|
|
Mr Liam Lawlor
|
He said he envisioned Mr Lawlor would be in the witness box until "at least the end of the week".
This morning the tribunal was told the former Dublin West TD had sought a £2 million finder's fee for his part in a property deal in the Czech Republic.
The tribunal has established that Mr Lawlor created a company, Zatecka 14 s.r.o., in 1999 through which he conducted a consultancy business.
Mr Des O'Neill, SC for the tribunal, took the witness through a series of documents showing Zatecka's role in the proposed sale of a Prague building to an Irish property firm, Ballymore, in February 2000.
Mr Lawlor wrote to Ballymore that month detailing the sale of the Hybernska building for £4 million. A letter dated March 10th, 2000, also notes Zatecka was seeking a "finder's fee" of £2 million on top of the sale price.
Mr O'Neill also produced notes by Mr Lawlor's solicitor, Mr Anthony Seddon, which he said seemed to indicate the witness was seeking £2 million for brokering the deal.
On what basis, Mr O'Neill asked, could the former Dublin West TD have for charging £2 million for securing a deal on a property worth only twice that? "There's no evidence I ever asked for that," Mr Lawlor said. "Nowhere did I say there can be a £2 million profit for Zatecka."
Mr Lawlor said he came to decide on the figure after looking at a different building, which was "given short shrift" as the vendors were seeking too much for it. In that case, Mr Lawlor said, he went and "had a look at that building and on that basis I reflect the figure of the potential uplift." This uplift, he said, was the £2 million.
He insisted that he never received this fee from Ballymore in any case, as the project had since stalled. His understanding at the time was that he would only be paid "subject to the commercial advancement of the project".
The tribunal was then shown a letter from Ballymore disputing the fact they had agreed to pay Mr Lawlor such a large finder's fee.
Tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon asked Mr Lawlor if he still believes this figure is owed to him. "It could be, if things progress," Mr Lawlor answered.
The tribunal heard that although he never received the full finder's fee of £2 million, Mr Lawlor received over £200,000 for his part in the deal.
Mr Lawlor earlier described his role in a property development firm called the Irish Consortium from 1994 to 1999. He said he did not have a beneficial interest or shareholding in the company but had an "understanding" he would receive up to a one-third share in any profits it earned for his role as a consultant. He said he never earned any money from this arrangement.
