Conclusion on Dunne 'perverse':The family of Charles Haughey disputed the Moriarty tribunal's conclusions and said several of its findings were not supported by evidence.
In a statement it said: "It is with great sadness that the Haughey family issue this statement.
"It is the first time we as a family have ever commented publicly on any matter relating to the late Charles J Haughey. We are issuing this statement because we believe that allegations of political corruption or misuse of office are unfounded on the basis of the evidence."
In particular, the family cited the findings made about Mr Haughey's relationship with Ben Dunne, the late Mahmoud Fustok, and in relation to his late friend, former minister for justice Brian Lenihan.
"We also believe it is wrong that the tribunal did not issue any positive findings other than in relation to the matter of Glen Ding, relating to the fact that Mr Haughey did not do any act or make any decision to benefit persons or companies who made donations to him for the period 1979 to 1996, and which were the subject of the tribunal's investigations for the last nine years"
Mr Haughey's son, Seán, who was promoted this week by Mr Ahern to the rank of Minister of State, declined to speak to reporters today.
In its submission to the tribunal, the family stated that at no stage was Mr Haughey ever made aware before he died of the proposed findings of the tribunal and never was it communicated to him by the tribunal that adverse opinions were to be made against him.
"If he had been made so aware in 2001 [when his dealings with the tribunal ended], it would have given him an opportunity of dealing with each of those allegations and of answering them or tendering such evidence as might be useful for the tribunal to consider," it submitted.
The family dealt in particular with the findings made about Mr Haughey's dealings with three people: Ben Dunne, Mahmoud Fustok and Brian Lenihan.
In relation to Ben Dunne, the family disputed the evidential basis for a number of the tribunal's findings.
For instance, contrary to the tribunal's assertion that in approaching the Revenue Commissioners as taoiseach on behalf of Mr Dunne in 1987 and 1988, "Mr Haughey sought to and did confer a benefit upon Mr Dunne in return for substantial payments received from him", the tribunal had not identified the alleged benefit sought or conferred on Mr Dunne by Mr Haughey, the family contended. The tribunal's finding to the contrary was "perverse".
It challenged also the tribunal's assertion that a payment of £50,000 from the late Mahmoud Fustok did not represent a payment to Mr Haughey for a yearling that was said to be from the Haughey family.
The family submitted that "all of the evidence available to the tribunal supports the evidence that a sale involving a horse took place between the late Mr Mahmoud Fustok and Abbeville Stud".
At no time did the tribunal suggest to any of the witnesses, nor did they suggest to Mr Fustok in correspondence, that no sale had taken place, according to the submission.
The Haughey family reminded the tribunal of the former taoiseach's detailed statement on the question of Brian Lenihan's medical treatment. In it, Mr Haughey maintained that the fundraising initiative was taken to save a friend's life, that all funds were spent in Mr Lenihan's best interest and that he "did not, could not and would not divert one penny of those funds for any other purpose".
In its submission, the family stated: "Mr Haughey's belief always was that more money was expended on the late Mr Lenihan's medical treatment than was accounted for."
"The evidence shows that other monies were intermingled with the Brian Lenihan fund monies. There were also election funds for two elections that year placed in the same account and no precise records were kept at that time," it pointed out.