Background: RTE's chief news reporter, Charlie Bird, and its economics editor, George Lee, ran a series of reports on RTÉ news in 1998 which, Ms Flynn told the libel trial in early 2001, meant she had instigated a scheme whose object was the evasion of the lawful payment of tax.
Specifically, the reports alleged that Ms Flynn, as an investment adviser working with National Irish Bank, had encouraged a retired farmer, Mr James Howard, to invest his money in the offshore CMI scheme which was sold by the bank, rather than avail of the tax amnesty to declare undeclared income.
The High Court jury in the action decided that RTÉ had proved that Ms Flynn had advised or encouraged a number of persons to evade tax, but they also found the defendants, RTÉ, Charlie Bird and Mr James Howard, had not proved the TD had induced Mr Howard to evade tax.
Ms Flynn received no damages after the jury decided her reputation had suffered no material injury because of the broadcasts. RTÉ had reported that Mr Howard had said that Ms Flynn had dissuaded him from using the 1993 tax amnesty, saying he should put the money offshore in the CMI scheme instead.
Ms Flynn insisted she had not sold Mr Howard a personal portfolio, she did not know him and had not had the conversations with him that he alleged had taken place. The jury found that RTE had not proved its report in this regard.
However, during the court hearing a series of other witnesses said that Ms Flynn had advised them to put substantial sums of money in the CMI offshore scheme rather than avail of the tax amnesty. Ms Flynn denied giving such advice.
She denied discussing the tax amnesty with a coach business operator, Mr Sean Roe, and denied saying to him that the tax man would never get his hands on an investment if it were in a CMI product.
Mr Roe had bought a CMI Personal Portfolio in excess of £100,000. She denied that she had advised him not to give away 15 per cent of his money through using the tax amnesty.
Mr Roe said she told him the Revenue would never find out about it, that his investment would be safe. He said she also told him politicians and judges had been involved, and there was no reason to worry.
A retired boutique-owner, Ms Joy Hawe, said she invested in a CMI personal portfolio through Ms Flynn. She said Ms Flynn told her the money would be in the Isle of Man and was completely watertight, and not even the Revenue would gain access to it, she said. Ms Flynn denied this.
A Co Louth widow, Ms Joan Quigley, said she had discussed with Ms Flynn her late husband's bank account in Newry, and that Ms Flynn knew it contained undeclared money. Ms Flynn advised her to go for the CMI personal portfolio investment policy and not for the tax amnesty, Ms Quigley said. She invested sums in the CMI account about 1993.
Ms Flynn told the court that the offshore investment scheme at the centre of her libel action was a "perfectly legitimate product". The CMI Personal Portfolio Scheme, one of several products including 47 personal portfolios which she sold while working with National Irish Bank for six years, was a legitimate and tax-efficient way of investing money, she said.
She said she had not advised people about tax. "I was not a tax adviser and I had no expertise in the area of tax. It was always explained to individuals that I was not a tax adviser and neither was I a legal adviser."
The focus of her job was to give investment advice. It never occurred to her to ask clients where their money had been invested or whether they had paid tax. She could not confirm whether people to whom she sold policies made payments to the Revenue.
When it was suggested to her that the culture and approach of the NIB financial services division were to seek to direct "hot money" to be invested in NIB, she said that was not her culture in NIB and she did not believe it was the culture of the division.
However, having heard the evidence, the jury found that she had indeed advised or encouraged a number of people to evade tax. The Supreme Court upheld this finding last week.