So who now will dare to follow in the steps of Mr Liam Lawlor and cock a snook at the Flood tribunal? What arrogant politician, secretive lawyer or large-pocketed builder will dare to defy, prevaricate, lie, flee or otherwise subvert the inquiry set up to get to the bottom of corruption in Irish society?
Yesterday's ruling was the answer for all those who legitimately asked: "But will anyone go to jail for it?" Seven days in Mountjoy mightn't seem all that much, but it is a start, unprecedented and historic for all its brevity.
The decision to put a leading politician behind bars has breached a new frontier. "No one is above the law . . . there are no untouchables," said Mr Justice Smyth in a ringing declaration that served to remind us that Ireland has been full of untouchables up to now.
In Leinster House, in county council chambers, in solicitors' and accountants' offices, the realisation must be sinking in that defying the tribunal is no longer an option. The long arm of the law has found new ways of punishment, and a failure to co-operate can prove just as costly as outright proof of corruption.
There was a more than a touch of righteous indignation about Mr Justice Smyth's description of the TD's behaviour as a "scandal" and his liberal quotation from Shakespeare. All that was missing was for a bony finger to point to the accused at the back of the crowded courtroom and to call for fire and brimstone to rain down upon Mr Lawlor's head.
Mr Lawlor is now on the second-last stop of his three-year campaign of resistance to the tribunal. He is certain to end up in Mountjoy tomorrow unless he appeals to the Supreme Court before then.
Up to now, he has never balked at the expense and effort involved in launching appeals. However, this time the odds are stacked against him more than ever. Mr Justice Flood has found against him. A High Court judge has just torn strips off him. On his last visit, the Supreme Court didn't even need to hear the tribunal's arguments before deciding against the politician. True, on his first visit the court did find partially in Mr Lawlor's favour, but this turned out to be a pyrrhic victory.
Mr Justice Smyth's finely crafted ruling offers Mr Lawlor the option of a bearably short period behind bars. It might be that a self-defined martyrdom will prove preferable to a Supreme Court challenge, which may only be postponing the inevitable.
If he does go to the superior court, it could be to challenge the decision, the sentence or even the right of Mr Justice Smyth to rule in the case. Doubtless, veteran senior counsel Mr Paddy MacEntee, for Mr Lawlor, will examine all the possibilities for keeping his client out of jail over the next 36 hours.
Right from the start, things went badly for Mr Lawlor yesterday. Mr MacEntee appeared to have a sense of what was coming even before the judge read his verdict. He repeated his client's grovelling apologies. Then Mr Lawlor had to sit impassively through a 90-minute pummelling by Mr Justice Smyth.
The judge asked why Mr Lawlor went to his banks for information, but not to lawyers, accountants and others he had dealt with. He suggested Mr Lawlor tried to "fob off" the tribunal by acting as a conduit between the banks and the tribunal.
He criticised the "bare, minimalist approach" taken by the TD in his affidavits. He also attacked the standard of the affidavits, saying even the most recently-qualified solicitor would not have put together such sub-standard documents. Mr Lawlor's youthful solicitor must have been reduced to the role of a "functionary clerk", the judge concluded.
Mr Lawlor knew "full well" what he was doing, he said. He decided "what the tribunal should receive and when" and provided information on a need-to-know basis that he determined.
Yesterday's defeat left Mr Lawlor with the bill for three senior counsel and other lawyers for the four days of last week's hearing. Most estimates put the bill at about £100,000. At least, the taxpayer won't be footing the bill.
But it doesn't end there. As the judge reminded us in his verdict, Mr Justice Flood has already complained to the Director of Public Prosecution about Mr Lawlor's alleged obstruction of the tribunal. This is separate from yesterday's case, in which he was found to be in contempt of the court's order.
None the less, Mr Justice Smyth freely delivered his view in the criminal contempt case, which is that Mr Lawlor is guilty of this offence too. The penalty here is a fine of £10,000 and up to two years in jail, although Mr George Redmond got off with just a fine on the same charge last year.
Finally, Mr Justice Smyth raised the issue of perjury, and pointed to a number of instances where he felt Mr Lawlor did not tell the truth. And all this before the West Dublin TD even begins his evidence proper.