A man appeared before magistrates at Belfast's Laganside Court this morning and denied charges related to last December's robbery at the Northern Bank in Belfast.
Dominic McEvoy (23), a builder from Kilcoo, Co Down, was charged with the £26½ million (nearly €40 million) robbery from the Northern Bank in the city last December.
Mr McEvoy, who was arrested in Kilcoo on Tuesday and is the first to be charged in connection with the robbery, denied any involvement in the robbery and denied he was a member of the Provisional IRA.
Det Insp Sean Wright revealed the suspect was interviewed seven times after his arrest at his home on Tuesday before charges were levelled against him.
The officer told the court that Mr McEvoy replied: "I have no involvement in the Northern Bank robbery or in the kidnapping at Loughinisland Road.
Even though Det Insp Wright insisted he could connect McEvoy with the charges, defence solicitor Peter Corrigan disputed the evidence being relied upon.
When questioned about the accused allegedly telling police he did not leave a hat at the scene, the detective replied that he only said this in a prepared statement.
Mr McEvoy also denied membership of the Provisional IRA, the officer told the court. "In the remainder of the interviews, the defendant declined to comment," he added.
The detective was challenged to explain why no identification parade was held to establish whether any witnesses could single out the defendant.
"The prosecution case is not based on identification evidence," Det Insp Wright said. "It is a case based on circumstantial and forensic evidence."
Peter Corrigan
Although Mr Wright insisted he could connect McEvoy with the charges, defence solicitor Peter Corrigan disputed the evidence being relied upon.
He said: "It would be the defence's case that the only evidence against the defendant is that his DNA, along with other unknown persons' DNA, is on the hat outside Loughinisland."
Although Mr Corrigan said his client told police he did not leave a hat at the scene, the detective replied that he spoke only to read a prepared statement and to deny membership of the Provisional IRA.
"In the remainder of the interviews, the defendant declined to comment," he added.
Mr Corrigan also challenged the detective to explain why no identification parade was held to establish whether any witnesses could single out the defendant. "The prosecution case is not based on identification evidence," Mr Wright said. "It is a case based on circumstantial and forensic evidence."
He repeated this assessment after Mr Corrigan questioned whether the hat was either the main or exclusive strand of the prosecution's case.
But with McEvoy's legal team insisting that the DNA evidence was uncertain, they demanded to know why witness statements dealing with the description of the person wearing the hat were not disclosed by police.
Mr Corrigan told the court: "I would submit you would not be in a position to connect the defendant with the charges until you had the prosecution witness identifying the general description of the person wearing the hat.
"The prosecution case throughout interview was that the only admissible evidence was in relation to DNA on a hat that included the DNA of other unknown persons.
"The officer has conceded that they are not relying on identification evidence. Consequently, the hat is irrelevant." Public Prosecution Service representative Raymond Kitson disputed the defence's assessment, saying it was not an accurate representation of what the detective had told the court.
Resident magistrate Ken Nixon remanded McEvoy in custody until December 2 when he is due to appear again in court via video link.
As he was being led from the dock, his friends stood to applaud him.