Analysis:The former taoiseach, the late Charles Haughey, used his position as the most powerful politician in the State to confer favours on donors who made clandestine payments to him.
This is the most stark conclusion of the 678-page report published yesterday by the chairman of the Moriarty tribunal, High Court judge Michael Moriarty.
The large and secretive payments made to Mr Haughey by members of the business community at a time when Mr Haughey as taoiseach was "championing austerity" could only be said "to have devalued the quality of a modern democracy", the judge said.
He referred to the period between 1979 and 1992, when Mr Haughey was at the zenith of his political career, as "a dismal period in the interface between politics and business in recent Irish history". It was a period when much that went on was "unacceptable, wrong and must not be replicated".
The picture outlined of Mr Haughey is of an extremely powerful and crooked man who over the period 1979 to 1996 received the equivalent of €45 million in clandestine payments. Mr Haughey bullied and intimidated people, the judge found. The evidence heard by the tribunal included acknowledgments of Mr Haughey's "diligence and capability" but "also included elements of fear and domination engendered by him in individuals in both private and public sectors".
Mr Haughey knew about the millions he received over the years and the fact that the money was being hidden from the Revenue by his friend, the late accountant Des Traynor, the judge said. Yet Mr Haughey claimed in evidence this was not the case and volunteered "no information whatsoever" to the tribunal.
The then taoiseach initiated a collection in 1989 for his friend and Fianna Fáil colleague, the late Brian Lenihan, and then used the bulk of the funds collected for himself.
The judge found that £265,000 was raised from a range of donors, but just £70,283 was used for Mr Lenihan's medical treatment. "The tribunal is satisfied that a sizeable proportion of the excess funds collected was misappropriated by Mr Haughey for his personal use."
Mr Haughey also stole money raised by his party for its general election campaign in 1989. He manipulated Fianna Fáil's financial recording system to facilitate his theft. He used cheques from the Fianna Fáil party leader's account which had been co-signed while blank by his colleague, the then minister Bertie Ahern, to transfer funds to Mr Traynor.
When called to give evidence, Mr Haughey refused to tell what he knew and sought to blame former friends and colleagues. "The tribunal rejects and notes with some regret evidence given by Mr Haughey in which he sought to saddle such individuals as Ms Eileen Foy and Mr Paul Kavanagh and Mr Jack Stakelum with responsibility for particular aspects of his financial affairs."
Mr Justice Moriarty described Mr Haughey's efforts in his evidence to attribute responsibility for issues to do with the party leader's account to Ms Foy and Mr Kavanagh as "regrettable and reprehensible".
He rejected Mr Haughey's evidence in relation to his tax affairs where Mr Haughey sought to transfer responsibility to Mr Traynor and his tax agents Deloitte.
Mr Haughey's "characterisation of himself as a lay person who had delegated these matters to a series of professionals whom he was entitled to rely upon, was neither justifiable nor credible".
Despite all this, the starkest finding is in relation to acts or favours done by Mr Haughey to benefit people who had given him money.
The tribunal heard evidence in relation to three possible favours to donors by Mr Haughey, and found against him in relation to two. But in a very damaging finding it said that this did not mean that other acts and decisions of Mr Haughey's over the course of his career were "not devoid of infirmity".
In relation to the late Mahmoud Fustok, a hugely wealthy Saudi sheikh, the judge linked a payment of £50,000 to Mr Haughey in 1985 to the interest Mr Haughey took in applications for naturalisation as Irish citizens that came from a number of people associated with Mr Fustok.
In the case of one naturalisation, that of Faten Moubarak, Mr Haughey himself directed an official from the Department of Justice to issue the naturalisation, despite the department's objections. "Mr Haughey made a decision by way of return for that [ the £50,000] payment," Mr Justice Moriarty said.
The payment from Mr Fustok was made by way of the former minister for health Dr John O'Connell, who also sponsored the passport applications and lobbied Mr Haughey in relation to them. Mr Justice Moriarty found that Dr O'Connell "conducted himself inappropriately".
A second issue looked at was Mr Haughey's actions in relation to Dunnes Stores. Mr Justice Moriarty did not accept Ben Dunne's evidence that additional payments discovered by the Moriarty tribunal which had not been disclosed to the 1997 McCracken tribunal had been forgotten by Mr Dunne.
A key aspect of these payments is that some pre-dated the payments revealed to the McCracken tribunal. On this basis, the Moriarty tribunal has decided that the approach to Mr Dunne by Mr Traynor, seeking money for Mr Haughey, occurred earlier than the McCracken tribunal reported. The approach occurred by way of Dunne trustee Noel Fox, who knew Mr Haughey.
It resulted in Mr Haughey receiving Stg£1.69 million and Ir£232,000, in a number of payments, over the period 1987 to 1993.
"The tribunal is satisfied that the approach made to Mr Dunne . . . was not made in November 1987 . . . but was in fact made some time prior to May 1987 and may have been made as early as February 1987 when the Fianna Fáil party was returned to government and Mr Haughey was elected taoiseach."
The report directly related the massive flow of funds from Dunnes Stores to Mr Haughey to a £38.8 million capital gains tax bill then being fought by the Dunne family trust.
It did not agree with the conclusion of Mr Justice McCracken that there was "no wrongful use of his [ Mr Haughey's] position".
The McCracken tribunal had heard that Mr Haughey arranged a meeting between Mr Dunne and the then head of the Revenue, Philip Curran, but found nothing wrong with it. The Moriarty tribunal discovered that Mr Haughey had also arranged an earlier meeting between Mr Curran's predecessor, Séamus Paircéir, and Mr Dunne.
Given the totality of the evidence, the tribunal concluded "Mr Haughey in return for such payments acted with a view to intervening improperly in a pending tax case of great magnitude . . . One of the salient features of his involvement in the Revenue handling of the matter was his persistence in intervening with successive chairmen, matched only by Mr Dunne's persistence in requesting his intervention." The judge pointed out the Dunne trust had already achieved direct access to Mr Paircéir without Mr Haughey.
Mr Haughey, as head of government, was persistent "in advertising to Revenue his interest in Dunnes affairs so as to signal his support for a radical reduction in the amount of tax being demanded by Revenue". Ultimately, the Dunne trust's appeal against the tax bill was successful.
The third act examined by the tribunal was that of the sale of Glen Ding Wood to CRH plc, a company with which Mr Traynor was associated.
It found no connection with Mr Haughey.
A number of supporters of Mr Haughey have over recent years said he may have accepted money but there is little to show he ever did anything in return. Mr Justice Moriarty did not accept this view.
"Whilst the number of acts or decisions on the part of Mr Haughey that have been found to fall within the terms of reference is limited, although scarcely insignificant, and whilst as stated a limited number of matters privately investigated did not warrant proceeding to public sittings, this cannot and does not give rise to a finding that all other acts or decisions in public office on the part of Mr Haughey during the relevant years were devoid of infirmity."
A detailed investigation into all his acts and decisions would be impracticable, the judge said.
