Category: Comment

For the past couple of years I have attended the rather excellent Investigative Journalism Summer School in London run by the CIJ. It’s on again this year on July 6th to July 8th. Knowing that a large amount of Irish journalists subscribe to this blog I would encourage them (and others!) to attend. The cost if you book before May 4 is just £260 for three full days training – a bargain. The first year I was there, there were three journalists from Ireland, including myself. The second year there were five including myself – perhaps this year we can get it do a dozen?

Book here.

The Euro has really broken down. It has sprung defects, some of which could have been anticipated and some were anticipated. But some actually couldn’t. Effectively, heavily indebted countries [in Europe] have ended up in the position of a third world country that is heavily indebted in a foreign currency. And that is only one of the unanticipated results of how things worked out [with the Euro].

[via Steve]

As a long time follower of the Mahon/Flood Tribunal my main take away is this (and no doubt Public Inquiry thinks similar):

Throughout that period, corruption in Irish political life was both endemic and systemic. It affected every level of Government from some holders of top ministerial offices to some local councillors and its existence was widely known and widely tolerated. Although that corruption was occasionally the subject of investigation or adverse comment, those involved operated with a justified sense of impunity and invincibility. There was little appetite on the part of the State’s political or investigative authorities to take the steps necessary to combat it effectively or to sanction those involved.

All I would add is this: Nothing has changed.

I will be giving a talk at the Science Gallery Dublin tomorrow, March 13, at 6pm on the subject of FOI and AIE. It might be of help to people who are considering doing a request, or have done one but need some advice on what to do next.

Booking is required and details are here.

Update:

Here is the presentation I gave.

The FOI Act 1997/2003
The AIE Regulations 2007/2011
The Government’s FOI website

To new visitors coming from the Irish Times, you can view the 2010 Taoiseach expenditure data here. There is an option to download the information on the right and there is a zoom function on the top.

Update: December 2011: This case has been appealed to the High Court.

In February of 2010 I sent a request to NAMA asking for a set of information under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) (SI 133/2007) (NOT the same as FOI, but similar). NAMA refused on the basis that it did not consider itself a public authority for the purposes of those regulations. As was my right, I appealed to internal review to a more senior member of staff in NAMA. I was again refused. I then appealed to the Commissioner for Environmental Information (we are into May 2010 now).

I asked for legal help on a blog post, because the issues that were arising were legally complex. Fred Logue, who has a background in legal stuff, offered to help. I am hugely indebted to him for all of his help with this case – it required extensive legal research and lengthy submissions (all of which I will publish here).

Last Summer in an initial preliminary view, the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information took the view that NAMA was correct in their view, and that myself and Fred were wrong in our interpretation of the legislation. I blogged about it at the time. The Office then asked for further submissions in light of this view, both from myself and from NAMA. We did so. There were then further submissions on top of those, and more, right up until the end of 2010.

The core argument Fred and myself made was this: The legislation uses the phrase “and includes” in its definition of public authority. We argued that this has the logical meaning of inclusion, rather than exclusion. NAMA’s argument was essentially that ‘and includes’ really means ‘may include’. Without getting too much into the legal arguments, here is the law in question:

““public authority” means, subject to sub-article (2)—
(a) government or other public administration, including public advisory
bodies, at national, regional or local level,
(b) any natural or legal person performing public administrative functions
under national law, including specific duties, activities or services in
relation to the environment, and
[133] 5
(c) any natural or legal person having public responsibilities or functions,
or providing public services, relating to the environment under the
control of a body or person falling within paragraph (a) or (b),
and includes—
(i) a Minister of the Government,
(ii) the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland,
(iii) a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2001
(No. 37 of 2001),
(iv) a harbour authority within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1946
(No. 9 of 1946),
(v) the Health Service Executive established under the Health Act 2004
(No. 42 of 2004),
(vi) a board or other body (but not including a company under the Companies
Acts) established by or under statute,
(vii) a company under the Companies Acts, in which all the shares are
held—
(I) by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government,
(II) by directors appointed by a Minister of the Government,
(III) by a board or other body within the meaning of paragraph (vi), or
(IV) by a company to which subparagraph (I) or (II) applies, having
public administrative functions and responsibilities, and possessing
environmental information;”

Simply put, our argument was that NAMA fell under “(vi) a board or other body (but not including a company under the Companies Acts) established by or under statute”. NAMA argued that it had to fall under (a), (b) or (c) before it could be included in (i) to (vii).

In her decision today the Commissioner has agreed with our view that “and includes” means “and includes” and therefore NAMA is a public authority. By extension it also means that any company under the Companies Acts, in which all the shares are held by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government is also a public authority for EIR purposes. This would include Anglo Irish Bank.

The result is not just that NAMA is a public authority, but that the legislation itself is clarified so as to expand the scope of what defines public authorities in Ireland. This is a victory for transparency in Ireland. NAMA have leave to appeal the decision to the High Court, on a point of law, within eight weeks.

Any questions? Direct to gavinsblog AT gmail DOT com

This is the decision:

Readers,

Wojtek Bogusz, a digital security consultant for Frontline Defenders, who provides training and advice to human rights activists on how to increase privacy and freedom of communication in repressive environments will be giving a talk tonight in the Science Gallery Dublin. If you’re interested in attending please book on the website. I will be there to introduce Wojtek. It’s very well worth attending if you’re interested in things like Wifi security and protecting yourself from hacking.

Gavin

I recently obtained interesting documents from a Florida court which outline further details of the investigation into tax evasion by people formerly associated with Portsmouth Football Club.

The investigation is part of ‘Operation Apprentice’ a long standing investigation into alleged football corruption. In 2007, then Portsmouth chief executive Peter Storrie was arrested — along with then manager Harry Redknapp, then club owner Milan Mandaric (now owner of Sheffield Wednesday), agent Willie McKay and former Portsmouth player Amdy Faye — over allegations of corruption. The five men were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud and false accounting.

Last year Redknapp, who is the current manager at Tottenham, was charged with “two counts of cheating the public revenue of an estimated £40,000 after voluntarily attending London’s Bishopsgate police station”. Redknapp has been touted as a successor to Fabio Capello as England football manager. According to The Independent:

Charges concerned two payments, totalling 295,000 US dollars, alleged to have been made from Mandaric to Redknapp via a bank account in Monaco, evading the tax and National Insurance contributions due between April 1, 2002 and November 28, 2007.

Mandaric, now chairman of Leicester, was charged with tax evasion relating to the payment of 295,000 US dollars to another person via a Monaco bank account, evading tax and National Insurance.

Storrie was charged with concealing a signing-on fee for ex-Portsmouth player Amdy Faye by paying it into the midfielder’s bank account.

The allegation related to the transfer of Faye from Auxerre to Fratton Park for £1.5million in August 2003.

For his part, Redknapp sought to have the case against him dismissed in November last year.

But according to these court documents, the Crown Prosecution Service sought the assistance of the US Department of Justice in September 2010 relating to the transfer of $295,000 from the Florida bank account of a company called First Star International to an account held by Redknapp in Monaco.

Also included in a list given by the CPS was one payment by “Rosie 47” of $207,433.73 on February 12, 2008 to Redknapp. This payment was two months after he was arrested in November 2007. The source of another lodgment in June 2002, for $145,000, is unclear.

The CPS requested US authorities to assist them in obtaining information from the bank used by First Star International – the City National Bank of Florida. According to the CPS letter:

When Milan Mandaric was questioned in relation to payments made to Henry Redknapp, he admitted that he had made one payment to him which was for an investment. He denied that he had used an off shore account to conceal payments upon which tax was payable. We have identified a pattern of offshore accounts being used to make payments to employees of Portsmouth Football club without accounting for the tax due on such payments.

You will note from the above table that two payments were made to Henry Redknapp from a company called First Star International. Internet searches have named Mandaric as a director of the company and that First Star International Inc is a company formed in California in 1988 and authorised to do business in Florida in 2001. We have identified the account number from an exhibit in our case which is an email sent from Mandaric’s solicitor to the Harry Radknapp’s solicitor requesting the repayment of a loan. The request states that the loan should be repaid to the account at First Star International and states the account number.

The company has a bank account at

City National Bank of Florida
Private Client Group
Miami
Florida 33130

The CPS stated:

The further evidence that we are seeking is expected to prove that at the material time, Mr. Mandaric was the director of First International. This will in turn assist the prosecution show that he was for responsible for making/authorising payments to the account in Monaco held by Mr. Redknapp and that these payments are for services that have not been declared for tax purposes, rather than a one off payment for an investment opportunity as Mandaric has suggested when questioned.

As far as I am aware these documents are the subject of a court order by Southwark Crown Court and therefore the British media have been unable to publish stories about them. The documents are published below in full (thanks to Offshore Alert).

Continue reading “Harry Redknapp, tax evasion and Mandaric's 'offshore account'”

For posterity, before it is removed from the Courts.ie website.