Colm Keenaoutlines the likely thrust of the Moriarty tribunal report.
Tribunals may only make findings of fact based on evidence heard in public and so all the issues to be ruled on in the Moriarty report, due this week, are already well known to the public.
The tribunal has heard plenty of evidence of people giving money to the former taoiseach, the late Charles Haughey, and very little concerning Mr Haughey doing favours in return.
Evidence was heard on only three cases of possible favours in return for money. These were in relation to Dunnes Stores and the Revenue; in relation to the late Mahmoud Fustok and passports, and in relation to Glen Ding Woods and CRH.
Public hearings were held on the sale of Glen Ding to CRH, but no evidence linked Mr Haughey to the sale, so a finding against Mr Haughey seems impossible.
On Dunnes Stores, evidence was heard that Mr Haughey prompted the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, Séamus Paircéir, to meet Ben Dunne in 1987, when the Dunne family was fighting a £38.8 million tax bill.
This and other evidence concerning when the huge flow of money from Mr Dunne to Mr Haughey began, is likely to have an impact on what the tribunal chairman, Mr Justice Michael Moriarty, says about Mr Dunne's motives for his payments to Mr Haughey.
The 1997 McCracken tribunal knew Mr Paircéir's successor, Philip Curran, also met Mr Dunne after Mr Haughey suggested such a meeting, and made little of it. The indications are that the judge is going to be more critical but may not characterise the events as corruption. (He may find that Mr Dunne was hoping for a return on his money.)
However, the evidence in relation to the 1985 payment of £50,000 to Mr Haughey from Mr Fustok contains sufficient material for a finding of corruption.
Mr Haughey and Mr Fustok, the latter by way of correspondence, both claimed the payment was in return for a yearling, but neither man was able to produce evidence of a sale. If, as has been indicated, the chairman is going to find that no sale occurred, then the payment can be linked to Mr Haughey's involvement, over a period of years, in securing passports for a number of Mr Fustok's relatives and associates.
In one instance, Mr Haughey directly ordered a civil servant to naturalise a nine-year-old girl, despite the reluctance of the civil servants involved in the case.
So it could be said the occupant of the State's most powerful office, in this instance, sold a favour (naturalisation).
Aside from the findings as to facts, the key aspect of the tribunal is likely to be the extent to which the judge censures Mr Haughey, and the language he uses. The Haughey family was dismayed earlier this year when it was shown some of the findings and statements that the judge was of a mind to make concerning the former taoiseach.
The family had been hopeful the judge would restrain himself to making findings as to fact. They believe he has in fact decided to allow himself to express opinions on Mr Haughey's conduct. The opinions are expected to be very harsh.
Mr Haughey only once issued a public statement during the tribunal's proceedings. That was on the day the tribunal revealed that money for a medical fund for the late Brian Lenihan may have been spent by Mr Haughey.
Mr Haughey said it was not so, but the evidence indicates he did in fact spend excess money from the fund on restaurant bills and tailored shirts from Paris. It will be another damaging finding.
Lastly, the judge is expected to say he did not believe Mr Haughey's evidence that he knew little about his personal finances.
He is expected to find that Mr Haughey did not co-operate with the tribunal, a finding that is likely to mean Mr Haughey's substantial legal costs will not be met by the State, and that some of the tribunal's own costs could be charged to Mr Haughey. In such an instance, the bill will be charged to Mr Haughey's estate.