A bid by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) to obtain the names of people who were members of the National Irish Bank (NIB) "board audit committee" was adjourned for a week at the High Court yesterday.
The director has applied to the court for an order for the names to be given to him by the court-appointed inspectors who investigated the affairs of NIB. A lawyer for the inspectors yesterday asked for and was granted a week's adjournment of the proceedings.
During yesterday's brief hearing, Mr Justice Kelly said correspondence had indicated that NIB, via its solicitors, had given the names of the three people on the board of the bank's auditing committee in the relevant year. The bank had given the names and addresses for two people, but there was no address for the third person.
It was "astonishing" that a bank that proved so inventive in providing fictitious addresses for customers could not give an address for a member of the audit committee, the judge said.
Whether or not that person was also a member of the bank's board of directors, it was astonishing the bank did not know the address of a member of its audit committee, he added.
Last July the investigators into NIB's affairs found that bogus non-resident accounts were opened and maintained in the bank's branches, enabling customers to evade tax; that accounts were opened in fictitious names; that there was improper charging of fees, and that these activities were widespread throughout the bank and carried on for a long period of time.
At the July hearing Mr Justice Kelly said the inspectors' report made findings against well in excess of a dozen senior NIB personnel "who carry or share responsibility for some or all of those activities".
Yesterday the ODCE brought a motion seeking an order granting liberty to the inspectors to release to the director details of the identities of persons referred to in the inspectors' report as "the Audit Committee of the Board" or "the Board Audit Committee".
Mr Brian Murray SC, for the ODCE, said that in the course of the inspectors' report a number of adverse comments were made about the audit committee at a particular time.
The inspectors did not identify the person to whom they were referring.
The director, in considering whether to embark on disqualification proceedings arising from the report against a number of persons, wished to ascertain as best he could to whom the inspectors referred.
Mr Justice Kelly adjourned the matter for mention to next Tuesday,when he said he hoped to be able to fix a date for the hearing of the director's application.
