During the 20 hours Mr Charles Haughey gave evidence in private earlier this year he was unable to identify any new benefactors.
Overall he had little to say in relation to specific identified transactions but he did offer some evidence as to the overall scenarios within which these transactions occurred. The tribunal, by way of calling witnesses who might be able to assist, is now testing whether his evidence stands up.
The most emotive revelation concerning Mr Haughey in recent years has been the evidence that he spent money which was collected for the treatment of his former friend, the late Mr Brian Lenihan. An excess over what was needed of up to £100,000, or perhaps more, may be involved.
The money was raised in 1989. Some more was raised two years later, and when asked about this Mr Haughey said he recalled Ms Eileen Foy, his secretary, telling him in 1990 that Mr Lenihan had come to his office and told her he was returning to the US for a checkup and planned to go on a holiday to Florida afterwards, with his family. Ms Foy, he said, then arranged that money was given to Mr Lenihan from the treatment fund and that afterwards she told Mr Haughey the fund was now empty.
Yesterday Ms Foy said she had no memory of Mr Lenihan coming to her office as described, and said she had never given him money from the fund, by way of cash or otherwise. The Lenihan family has also contested suggestions that Mr Lenihan was given money.
Ms Foy also yesterday differed with Mr Haughey in relation to the content of a conversation he had with her in 1999, as well as in relation to evidence he gave concerning a £30,000 cheque exchanged for cash in AIB Baggot Street in 1989. In relation to other evidence he gave which she might have been able to support or contest, she gave neutral responses.
Two senior figures from Deloitte & Touche and one former Haughey Boland accountant also gave evidence. Mr Pat Kenny, Mr Haughey's former tax agent, pointed out that Mr Haughey when signing tax returns in the mid-1990s, had not told him about the Dunne payments which, according to Mr Haughey himself, he knew about since 1993.
Mr Paul Carty, also of Deloitte & Touche, contested evidence Mr Haughey had given in relation to his role with Celtic Helicopters. Mr Haughey had suggested Mr Carty was acting in loco parentis for the group but Mr Carty strongly contested this. He was acting as a professional accountant taking instructions from a client, he said.
Mr Jack Stakelum, a former Haughey Boland accountant who took over the bill-paying service operated by that company when it was merged with Deloitte & Touche in 1991, strongly contested evidence Mr Haughey gave stating that he relied on Mr Stakelum and Mr Kenny together to look after his tax affairs.
Both Mr Stakelum and Mr Kenny agreed that they did not swap information or work in tandem.
Mr Kenny didn't know the extent of Mr Haughey's outgoings. He worked as Mr Haughey's tax agent with Haughey Boland when that company was still running a bill-paying service for Mr Haughey. While Mr Kenny was filing PAYE returns on Mr Haughey's behalf, another section of the firm was passing hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum through Mr Haughey's bill-paying service. However, the two sections of the firm did not share the information they had about Mr Haughey's affairs.
Mr Kenny said he believed Mr Haughey's affairs were arranged by someone so as to ensure the different persons or elements involved, each operated in an isolated way, in ignorance of what others were up to.
Last week Dr Michael Smurfit strongly rejected evidence Mr Haughey gave in relation to a £60,000 payment made in 1989. The money went to Mr Haughey but, Dr Smurfit said, it was intended for Fianna Fail.
The reading of Mr Haughey's evidence into the public record ended yesterday and more witnesses are expected to give evidence in response to it today.