Wheels of justice grind slowly but progress is being made

CAB is unlikely to be satisfied to act merely as a collector of unpaid taxin the Ray Burke case, writes Paul Cullen

CAB is unlikely to be satisfied to act merely as a collector of unpaid taxin the Ray Burke case, writes Paul Cullen

And so the net tightens. Last week it was the conviction of George Redmond on a corruption charge; this week we learn that the Criminal Assets Bureau has served Ray Burke with a €2 million tax bill.

Slowly, but seemingly relentlessly, the State is moving in on those at the centre of the corrupt world of an earlier era. Justice is coming, "dropping slow" but it is coming, and for this we should be thankful.

Mr Burke has been under investigation now for over 25 years. In the old days, when he was a powerful politician who instilled fear in those around him, he could afford to joke about this. In 1982, for example, after it was reported that the Garda Fraud Squad had interviewed him more than 20 times about an allegation, he stuck his head around the door of the political correspondents' room in Leinster House.

READ MORE

"Did ye hear," he said, "I'm the most interviewed deputy in the House." "That's great, Ray," said a journalist. "Yeah, by the fuckin' Guards," Burke retorted.

It's unlikely that the former minister for justice, communications, foreign affairs, energy, and industry and commerce (okay, not all at the same time) will find much to laugh about today. For CAB's tax demand should be seen as the start of a process that could see the former politician end up beside Redmond in jail, rather than a final stage in which he would be allowed to settle his debts to society.

CAB is unlikely to be satisfied to act merely as a collector of unpaid tax. Given the findings of last year's interim report of the Flood tribunal, which concluded that Mr Burke received numerous corrupt payments, it is probable that the bureau will attempt to bring criminal charges against the former minister.

As in previous cases, the challenge is to work effectively within the narrow confines of existing legislation, which was framed in the Victorian era. However, the Redmond case proved that a successful conviction for corruption could be secured, even with a weak witness and evidence that unfolded many years ago. But at least Mr Brendan Fassnidge, the chief witness in the Redmond case, acknowledged his role in the payment of a bribe. In the case of Mr Burke, none of those who gave evidence to the tribunal about payments to the former minister admitted complicity in corruption. There is one exception: Mr James Gogarty, the retired building company executive whose allegations led to the setting up of the tribunal. However, Mr Gogarty is now 86 years of age, and is hardly in a position to cope with the gruelling and protracted nature of criminal proceedings.

The tribunal report also ruled that Mr Burke hindered and obstructed its proceedings in a variety of ways, a finding which was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. While nothing has been heard from the DPP on this issue, Mr Burke could face a fine and a possible jail sentence if a successful prosecution was brought.

Besides, Mr Burke may not have finished with the tribunal yet. Several years ago, tribunal lawyers said they intended holding public hearings into the third big payment he received in 1989, that of £30,000 from Rennicks Manufacturing, which was paid on behalf of Sir Anthony O'Reilly's Fitzwilton group. It is one of the mysteries of the tribunal why this payment has not been investigated, when public hearings were held on the payments to Mr Burke from Mr Gogarty and the showbiz impresario and founder of Century Radio, Mr Oliver Barry.

As a result, the success of O'Reilly-related companies in obtaining MMDS rebroadcasting franchises at a time when Mr Burke was minister for communications has never been properly explored. We wait in hope.

Mr Burke has already made a tax settlement with the Revenue Commissioners, but that was before the tribunal revealed the full extent of his offshore banking. Of the €2 million bill served on him, only €300,000-€400,000 is a core sum and the rest is made up of interest and penalties. This is because of the fact that the payments were made so long ago and were not disclosed.

He can undoubtedly afford to pay. Three years ago, he sold Briargate in Swords, the house in which the Gogarty bribe was paid in 1989, for €3.8 million. The tribunal found no evidence that any money changed hands when Mr Burke acquired this house in 1974, although he claims he paid £15,000 for the property.

Mr Burke then moved to a more modest house in Whitehall, worth about €800,000, which is held in his wife's name.

Although he hasn't worked since retiring from politics in 1997, he receives TD's and ministerial pensions worth over €70,000. He is reported to spend most of his time watching cricket and enjoying the odd pint in the pubs around his own bailiewick in Swords.

Although his total wealth is difficult to establish, the tribunal has revealed payments totalling more than £750,000 to the former minister. The tribunal estimated that between 1982 and 1997, he earned €146,020 in deposit interest on political donations alone.

Even towards the end of its investigations, the tribunal continued to uncover further undisclosed offshore accounts of Mr Burke's.

Then there is the infamous "political fund" of £118,000 that Mr Burke constantly referred to in his evidence, saying he was receiving legal and accountancy advice on what to do with it.

Given CAB's tax demand, there are no prizes for guessing what Mr Burke's advisers will now tell him to do with this money.

And yet Mr Burke could still have the last laugh. He is certain to appeal the tax demand, and is likely to claim that the payments he received were political donations that are not subject to tax.

In any case, the €2 million tax bill he faces is but a fraction of the €10.5 million legal bill his lawyers have sent to the tribunal. The tribunal wants to withhold Mr Burke's costs and levy some of its own costs on him, but it faces a huge legal battle before it would be able to do this.

If Mr Burke does get his costs, even if only a fraction, he will end up costing the State more than the State could ever hope to get back from him.