Some developers moving assets out of State - Burton

SOME DEVELOPERS were transferring assets across the Border and abroad, Labour finance spokeswoman Joan Burton told the committee.

“Many people are enjoying much nicer weather in various parts of southern Spain and France,’’ she said.

Ms Burton added that many developers, and those involved in the property business, were rediscovering the joys of their foreign holiday homes.

Interests in assets were also being transferred to spouses or other family members, she added.

There had been “feverish activity’’ under way on the part of developers and people involved in the likely “Namification’’ process.

No one, she said, should gain any benefit or advantage from Nama unless they were tax resident in the State and had complied with their tax liabilities.

Ms Burton said the aim was to get credit flowing again, and the Minister’s hand needed to be as strong as possible relating to those who were a party to Nama and its potential beneficiaries.

Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan said it was quite extraordinary for Ms Burton to claim that the purpose of the legislation was to benefit developers, while also claiming that they “were fleeing the country in terror, hiding their assets’’.

He added that the transfer of assets to spouses and their removal offshore were serious matters.

“If you have any evidence of this, I would be very much obliged if you put it at my disposal.’’

He said there was specific provision in the legislation addressing the improper disposal of assets and the avoidance of certain transactions. “That supplements measures which are already there in general law to address this.’’

On offshore assets, the Minister said there was a reciprocal arrangement with other EU states which would be used in enforcement proceedings. There were also analogous but not identical reciprocal arrangements with certain countries outside the EU.

Ms Burton said some of the people involved in the Nama process had literally hundreds of companies, some of which were in difficulty.

She added that good and distressed assets’ loans went into the Nama portfolio and were paid for. However, the developer might have offshore or in other jurisdictions significant volumes of companies and assets which were performing quite well and not subject to the Nama process. Personal guarantees should extend over the totality of borrowers’ portfolios in this or other jurisdictions.

Mr Lenihan said that the assets related to banks and not developers.

“All of these bank assets have to be from participating institutions,’’ he added. “We are not taking over bank assets that lie with other institutions.’’

The loan, said Mr Lenihan, could be unsecured, personally secured, secured by way of charge, or by way of a combination.

“Nama will stand into the shoes of the bank. It will have the same rights as the bank had as against that creditor in respect of that loan.’’