Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1971 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Northern Ireland Relief Expenditure

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 20 Eanáir, 1971

Wednesday, 20th January, 1971

The Committee met at 11.40 a.m.

DEPUTY P. HOGAN in the chair.

ORDER OF DÁIL OF 1st DECEMBER, 1970.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) was in attendance in an advisory capacity.

Examination of Mr. William Christopher Walsh continued.

833. Deputy H. Gibbons.—The last day, Mr. Walsh, we got as far as asking to whom the cheque books were issued and I think you recollected that they were given to Captain Kelly for the Ann O’Brien and George Dixon accounts?

—That is right.

834. You could not recollect who got the one for the Loughran account?

—That is right, yes.

835. I wonder why the cheque book was given out in the triple account before the account was opened and in the other account it was not given out for, I think, two or three days afterwards—there is nothing unusual about this?

—No, I would not see anything unusual about it. I am assuming that the mandate and the cheque book were sent out together.

836. And the cheque book?

—And the cheque book, yes.

837. The mandate was sent out on 10th and the cheque book was debited on 11th?

—This would be normal procedure. The debit would go through next day.

838. Another thing, we have a copy of lodgment documents from the Red Cross to the triple account but we seem to have no copy of a document for the first lodgment. There was a letter from the Red Cross, I think, to the bank opening that account?

—Well, my recollection of the original lodgment was that it was a payment form from the Bank of Ireland by order of the Red Cross, possibly similar to some of the ones you have.

839. Would that be a payment? (document produced).

—Yes, on that line, yes.

840. The first one seems to be missing?

—Well, I cannot account for that.

841. To go back to your evidence the last day, Question 675, I think it is—I think it is by Deputy Collins—you were asked: “… you handed signature cards to Captain Kelly for completion?” And you answered in 673: “That is right”. Then, in 674 he suggested: “By that you mean Captain Kelly”? And you said: “At that time I knew him only as Mr. Kelly”. And then Deputy Collins asked: “As Mr. Kelly. You got signatures of the names White, Loughran and Murphy?” Would that be the names on the mandate?

—Yes. These are the names on the original mandate but I am afraid my answer there is not accurate. I did not get the names White, Loughran and Murphy from Mr. Kelly for this reason that the White, Loughran and Murphy account, as far as I know, was opened before Captain Kelly called. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not notice this when I read the evidence.

842. But I think—to whom was the mandate sent?

—This is what I cannot recollect.

843. In Question 731, also answering, I think, Deputy Collins, Deputy Collins put the question: “When Mr. Fagan rang you on the first occasion did he give you any indication as to the origin of the fund that had been made available for the relief of distress in the North?” and you answered on that occasion: “Apart from saying that the account that was to be opened would be funded through the Red Cross, and apart from saying that it was money available to the Government, he did not make any further comment.” Now the reason I ask this question is that it again brings up the question of who suggested the three names?

—I know, yes. No, my recollection is that there was no other comment made at that time about the origin of the moneys.

844. Well then, did Mr. Fagan at any stage make any suggestion about the three names?

—Well this is where the conflict exists and I cannot precisely recall that Mr. Fagan gave me those three names but he was the only person that I was dealing with at the time that I can remember.

845. There is another thing: would the mandate be returned before the account could be opened?

—It is desirable but not 100 per cent necessary.

846. Another question. I suppose it may be obvious from what we have heard. You sent out a mandate for the triple account and you only sent out a document for names or signatures for the other two accounts. Is this because one was a triple account and the others were single accounts?

—Yes, it is the usual documentation.

847. There is another question I would like to ask. When the Red Cross lodged the first money to your account, this would be by messenger or by post, anyway it would come in in an envelope?

—That is true.

848. This would be handed in over the counter. To whom would it go then or who would process this?

—Well, it would normally go, a lodgment handed in over the counter would normally go through a machine to be processed.

849. And if it came in in the post in the morning?

—If it came in in the post in the morning it would be—the various post is opened and segregated and the various documents are channelled into the various departments.

850. And then somebody else, in this case whoever has the signature on the account would be the person who actually wrote it in, documented it into the accounts?

—Well, a ledger machine operator would post it to the account.

851. Thanks very much, Mr. Walsh.

852. Deputy Keating.—Mr. Walsh—do you say Walsh or Welsh?

—Well, I do not mind.

853. You told us in your statement that you have known Mr. Fagan for a number of years. Had you met him socially before his present position in the Department of Finance or did you know him when he was in the Department of Agriculture, or can you trace when it was?

—I first met Mr. Fagan in the bank as a client.

854. A client in the public service or a client in his personal account?

—Oh, his personal account.

855. I see.

—I joined the Branch in 1955 so if Mr. Fagan had an account there then it was presumably some time after that.

856. He had a personal account with that Baggot Street branch you think at that time?

—I could not be precise that he had it at that particular time, but he has had it there for quite a while.

857. Let me get this correct. I am trying to express my thought. Mr. Fagan approached you on the telephone. Had you any reason to think when he made the telephone call early in November, on November 11th, from your previous knowledge and contact with him, that he was functioning in any other way apart from being a normal member of the staff of the Department of Finance?

—No, this is what I accepted at the time.

858. Is there any reservation in your saying “accepted at the time”? Have you doubted that since?

—Oh, no. No, certainly not.

859. Mr. Walsh, the question of this mandate. Is it your printing, in fact, on the mandate?

—It is, yes.

860. So the arrangement was, just to be clear about it, that you received some names, you believe, on the telephone and that you got the mandate form which we have in photostat and that you wrote those names in on it and you wrote the other details of the account in on it in your printing?

—Yes. It is all written by me.

861. It is all written by you except for the three signatures?

—Exactly.

862. You do not remember exactly how those signatures came to be on it, or do you?

—No.

863. You had some names on the telephone, if we are following a sequence. You got the mandate documents and wrote in, in your printing, those names and some other information on the account. You say, “I subsequently prepared a form of mandate,” “prepared” meaning you wrote in these names, White, Loughran and Murphy. Now, can you again recall, have you any idea, where you got those names from?

—This is the point which is causing me tremendous worry at the moment.

864. Yes. I can imagine it?

—Because I can realise the importance of it to the Committee and various theories have been jumping into my mind since I became aware of this conflict. I just cannot recall—there are theories—various things could have happened.

865. Yes. We accept that it was, you know, whatever it was, a year and a quarter ago, a little more, and that it did not seem to you then a thing of particular significance and that you do a lot of different sort of business like this every day, but could we take it then that the statement, the part of your statement where you say “to the best of my recollection” —we realise that involves a proviso; we realise that you are not completely sure of it—“to the best of my recollection the three names inserted in this mandate were furnished to me in the course of my telephone conversation with Mr. Fagan”— as I say we realise the proviso, but is that a fair description of your feelings now because obviously you have had to think about it a lot and you realise how important it is?

—I certainly have thought a lot about it. Various theories have occurred to me which could have happened at the time. For instance, for what it is worth, one theory could be that when I was discussing the opening of the account with Mr. Fagan we agreed on the designation as such, Belfast Committee for the Relief of Distress, and that this was written on the mandate by me and that subsequently when the mandate returned with the names on it that I wrote in the names from the signatures but, Mr. Keating, it is only a theory.

866. Yes. OK. I appreciate your difficulty about this. I am sure none of us would be too happy to recall events to which we did not attach particular importance as long ago as that. Let us assume that the description in your report is the correct one, that you got the names and that you wrote them in on the mandate. It then requires three signatures besides those printed names?

—Yes.

867. You say, “I sent this form to Mr. Fagan.” That is the next thing. Now, did the signatures, as you recall it, you got the mandate form, you wrote in three names on it in your printing, in printed capitals, your own print, and then you sent it to Mr. Fagan and it came back from Mr. Fagan with those three signatures then, with the signatures of what purported to be those three persons on it. Is that as you understand it?

—That is as I understand it.

868. Would there be any other mechanism whereby you could have sent to to anyone else?

—Deputy Keating, I am awfully sorry. There is an echo.

869. Deputy Briscoe.—It is coming back to all of us.

—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I found it very distracting.

870. Deputy Keating.—I was asking you was there any mechanism that occurred to you as possible for having these three signatures besides the three printed names on the mandate other than the one you indicate here, other than the one in fact that you sent that mandate to Mr. Fagan and that it came back from him with those three signatures on it?

—The theory I have already advanced is a possibility, that when the mandate came back signed, I completed the rest of it, the names.

871. I understand that, but is there any way that those three signatures got on to the mandate other than by your having sent to Mr. Fagan and Mr. Fagan having been an agent in securing those three signatures? I mean, did you send it to anybody else? Could you have sent it to anybody else? Did you know of anybody else that you might have been empowered to send it to at that time?

—At that time my recollection is that the only person I was dealing with in this connection was Mr. Fagan.

872. This was prior to your meeting Captain Kelly?

—It was, yes.

873. Since the occasion of the operating of this account you moved away then, your work in the Baggot Street branch finished on the Christmas Eve of that year as I recall it?

—That is right, yes.

874. You had an approach at Crumlin Cross from Captain Kelly in regard to the cashing of a cheque and of course you were also a witness—were you a witness in both trials? Were you called for both trials in September and October of 1970?

—I was summoned for both trials but I was not called on either occasion.

875. I see. Apart from that contact with Captain Kelly in the branch where you now work and apart from your formal transactions with the court at the time of the two trials, has anyone approached you since you left Baggot Street? Let me break it up. Has anyone from the papers or from any of the media approached you to discuss these events?

—No.

876. Has anyone in the public service approached you?

—No.

877. No civil servant of any sort?

—No.

878. You were approached by a detective officer and you made a statement in July of last year, on 1st July?

—That is right.

879. Had you any other previous or subsequent approach from the detective force?

—No, all this happened on the one day.

880. I see. Have you had any approach, finally, from any private persons, any political parties, anyone like that?

—No.

881. None at all? Had you any though on the occasion—I am referring again to your statement: “It was stated that a Mr. Kelly would call to see me later.” As to the dating of this, some days after 11th November, this would be, sometime, let us say, give or take a few days, around 15th November. “It was stated that a Mr. Kelly would call to see me later and having introduced himself would make the necessary arrangements.” Now, I obviously do not want to put speculations into your mind, but when persons come into your bank to do business with you, you obviously have certain thoughts about them. Now, did you think that he was a resident in the South or in the North of Ireland. Had you any reason to doubt that he was living and working in the Dublin area, for example?

—No, I had no reason.

882. Did you have any thoughts as to what his occupation or profession might be?

—No, I do not think so.

883. Because of the fact that his introduction came from someone that you knew to be fairly senior in the Department of Finance did you have any thought that he might in some way be connected with the Public Service?

—I cannot recall that the thought occurred to me at all really. I accepted Mr. Kelly on Mr. Fagan’s introduction. I did not give him any other thought, I must say, as far as I can remember.

884. Did you have any suspicion that he might, in fact, be an officer of military intelligence or of any other sort of intelligence work, or detective work?

—No.

885. When Captain Kelly came to the Crumlin Cross branch in April of 1970 how would he have known that you had been transferred from Baggot Street to Crumlin Cross? Let me put the question this way, if I were doing business with a particular branch of a bank and if I knew some official in it and went in again and that official were no longer there I could, of course, ask someone behind the counter: “Where is Mr. So-and-So working now?” Have you any idea what mechanism Captain Kelly used to find you at Crumlin Cross, because it was obviously, I think it was obvious, that he was seeking you particularly to cash that cheque?

—I must say the thought never occurred to me but presumably, as you suggest, he may have gone into Baggot Street any time before, any time before he called to me at Crumlin Cross and been told I had been transferred.

886. Do you recall the occasion of his coming to you in Crumlin Cross?

—I do, yes.

887. Did he ask to see you specifically?

—Well, Crumlin Cross is a small branch. I am usually in the public eye. I try to be all the time, in fact.

888. And when he came to you there he did not, therefore, have to send a message for you to come out and talk to him? In fact you saw him as he came in?

—I saw him coming in.

889. Yes. And this simply struck you as quite normal, that the drawing of cash in a branch different from the one where the original account was set up and in one where you had been transferred from Baggot Street to Crumlin Cross, nothing struck you as in any way peculiar that it should have been that branch or that it should have been to you that he had gone to do it?

—No, not particularly, I must say. Mind you, the banks were closing at 12.30 at that time and it is possible that it was handier for him to drop in.

890. But in your mind it was simply a matter of it being more convenient for him to go to you in Crumlin Cross in regard to time of opening and general convenience than to come into Baggot Street?

—Oh, I would think so, yes.

That is all, thank you, Mr. Walsh.

Chairman.—Deputy MacSharry.

891. Deputy MacSharry.—I have only a few questions and the first one I would like to put to you again is one that you were asked on last Thursday, when, as acting deputy manager you opened an account in the three names on the specific, you were asked this question by the Chairman, that you opened this account on the instructions of Mr. Fagan and you had no hesitation in saying: “That is correct” on last Thursday?

—Yes.

892. Do you have reservations? I mean, this is a crucial question and I do not want to labour it but I sense that you did have reservations when it was put to you today by Deputy Keating?

—I have no reservations to this extent, that Mr. Fagan contacted me and asked that an account be opened; the account was opened. The only difficulty in my——

893. Could an account be opened without names?

—Yes, well, it has to be called something. But it is preferable in the cases of clubs or funds that you have three people authorised, three or more, or as many as the fund likes, authorised to administer the money.

894. Yes. Now, two days later you got another phone call from Mr. Fagan to tell you that Mr. Kelly would call around. When Mr. Kelly did call around how did you refer to the account, the first account with Mr. Kelly?

—As the Belfast Relief Fund, presumably.

895. You did not mention the names White, Loughran and Murphy?

—I could not say. It would be unlikely that I would——

896. Did he mention them to you, if you can recall?

—I cannot recall. I would—the normal procedure—my normal procedure would be just to refer to it as the Belfast fund or the Belfast account.

897. Yes, but I think it is important that, if this discussion took place, either by you or by him in relation to the mentioning of the names, if you could remember?

—I cannot remember that the names came up between us at all.

898. So you just referred to the account, and even two days later when the account was opened and Mr. Kelly had called you still cannot recall him——

—No, it would be——

899. ——mentioning these three names?

——my natural reaction just to refer to it as the Belfast account.

900. You have no way of knowing exactly how you got these three names other than you suppose you got them from Mr. Fagan? You are not even sure of that?

—I am not, no.

901. Did you in the space of these two days have any contact with any of the people mentioned to you, Mr. F, or G or any of those?

—No.

902. You did not know anything about them?

—No.

903. You knew nothing about any individual concerned in this at all?

—No, not at that time.

904. Until you met Mr. Kelly you had dealt solely with Mr. Fagan?

—Exactly, yes.

905. You did say in relation to the mandate there that you sent out that the specimen signatures could have been filled in on a blank mandate, could they?

—That is possible and it does happen.

906. And that you subsequently printed in the right names?

—This is again, I say, just a theory, a possibility that could have happened.

907. But you do not know whether it did happen or not?

—No, I could not be specific and say that it did or not.

That is all the questions I have to put.

Chairman.—Deputy Nolan.

908. Deputy Nolan.—Mr. Walsh, how many of a staff were in the bank apart now from people inside in the office, such as typists et cetera, that is counter staff?

—In Baggot Street?

909. Yes?

—Well, there could be anywhere from between six to ten, depending on the business at the time.

910. It is a fairly big branch?

—I think the total staff is, subject to correction, 34 or 35.

911. During this period then quite a number of that staff would have met now Captain Kelly, as you knew him as a Mr. Kelly, but who would have met Captain Kelly quite a lot?

—I would say so, yes.

912. And nobody else, nobody mentioned in the three accounts ever cashed any cheques there? Captain Kelly cashed all the cheques, to your knowledge?

—Well, I could not answer that question because I do not know.

913. But to your knowledge and, surely from discussions with the staff even since then, no member of the staff, to your knowledge, ever met George Dixon or Anne O’Brien?

—To my knowledge, no.

914. To your knowledge, no. But it is possible that most of the counter staff would have met Captain Kelly?

—Yes, I would say so.

915. And during the period there was quite an amount of money being transacted and quite a number of, say, fairly large cheques being cashed? At no time did any of the staff become suspicious that quite a lot of money was being cashed and yet you had never met the people who were named in the account?

—Nobody said anything to me, but again I had left the branch about six weeks after the accounts were opened.

916. Oh, yes?

—Most of the transactions occurred since then.

—Thank you, Mr. Walsh.

Chairman.—Deputy Treacy.

917. Deputy Treacy.—I have not got many questions to ask you, Mr. Walsh. Perhaps since you last talked to us over the weekend is your mind any clearer on the matter of the relevant cheques that might conceivably be traced? Can you throw any further light on the important cheque, No. 925412, for instance, which was referred to?

—Is this the cheque that Deputy FitzGerald referred to?

918. The £8,500, Wellux Ltd.?

—I do not quite know what, how you want me to answer that.

919. Can you throw any further light on it? Surely you must have given this matter further consideration over the weekend?

—Apart from the fact that it was a cheque that was presented and returned unpaid I cannot really give any significant explanation for it.

920. Can you tell us any further about the second cheque book? One cheque book was received by Captain Kelly, that was the cheque book which we understand was operated by Miss Anne O’Brien and George Dixon. Again, is your mind any clearer as to what happened to the second cheque book?

—My memory is that when the accounts were opened the two cheque books were issued.

921. May we take it the second cheque book was operated by Mrs. White?

—That would be the second cheque book. It would be a much larger cheque allowing for two signatures. We have records of the issue of cheque books, of the issue on 14th November of cheque books, two separate small cheque books. I think it was on 10th November a cheque book was issued to the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress. These would have been entirely separate cheque books.

922. You left the Baggot Street branch on Christmas Eve, 1969?

—That is right.

923. Did you seek this transfer voluntarily?

—No.

924. Were you transferred in the ordinary way by your bank?

—Yes.

925. What consideration was given to the matter of the transfer? When did you first know you would be transferred?

—I think it was some time in November, but I would not be at all sure.

926. One last question. It has been asked before but it will clear up my own anxiety in the matter. George Dixon, Anne O’Brien, White, Loughran and Murphy you are now satisfied were fictitious characters?

—It seems clear now that they are.

927. You never saw them?

—No.

928. You never met them?

—No.

929. You never saw them sign their names?

—No.

930. Would you agree that the fictitious persons I referred to and Captain Kelly are one and the same person?

—I would not have an idea. I cannot answer that question.

931. Deputy Tunney.—I will not detain you too long but I wish to refer to what to me is one of the most vital points that have arisen since you came before us. I refer to the opening of the account. The opening of this account was one of the main duties you would have to discharge in the course of your duties?

—Yes.

932. It would not be as vital to you, perhaps, as it was to Mr. Fagan or to Mr. Kelly. The actual opening of the account would have formed a much more major part of their duties, of course, than yours?

—Presumably so. Mr. Kelly was not involved at that stage.

933. Did you read the Arms Trial evidence?

—I did.

934. Are you aware that Captain Kelly said he was the first person who went to Mr. Fagan and mentioned something to the effect that the account in Clones was too inconvenient and that it would be better to change it to Dublin, and that he asked for authority for that and that Captain Kelly agreed to that?

—I do not remember seeing that.

935. Do you recollect his also saying “yes” to the question as to whether he got Mr. Fagan to arrange with the appropriate official in the bank for the opening of the account?

—I think I have a recollection of that.

936. In the circumstances, where Mr. Fagan did suggest that it was Captain Kelly rather than he who dealt with the actual mechanics of the opening of these accounts, and where Captain Kelly himself has also said it, would you pit your recollection of the circumstances as against both of theirs?

—I would not because my recollection is so dim. I believe Mr. Fagan to be of the highest integrity and I have known him a long time.

937. You would also accept Captain Kelly’s recollection of his going to you with authority to open these accounts?

—He certainly came to open the O’Brien and the Dixon account but I do not know about the main account. If he said he did so, it is possible.

938. Again in the matter of the opening of the account, you explained that Mr. Fagan had been on to you and suggested the availability of these moneys and that you suggested the form in which the account would be opened, in three names. You were the deputy manager and you would have known. You gave that suggestion, having regard to what Mr. Fagan had told you. Was it not strange that in the course of two days you suggested some other manner of operating the account?

—It did not occur to me at the time. If further accounts were required to disburse the funds it was up to the people in authority.

939. You would admit that the question of the second account arose from your conversation with Captain Kelly, and even though you knew he had been introduced to you by Mr. Fagan, you said that the original thing was between you and Mr. Fagan, and you suggested to him that one main account should be opened in three names?

—Yes.

940. You did not think it strange then, having had somebody introduced to you— as far as you were concerned he might have been below or above Mr. Fagan, you were not too sure, he had been sent over— that there should be two additional accounts?

—It did not occur to me as strange. The original funds were still under the control of the authorised signatories and any money going into the two separate accounts would probably be drawn, be transferred, from the main account.

941. What would be the real need for that?

—As I see it, the need would be that if you are dealing with a fund and you give a large cheque to somebody to disburse the money, it may be to this person’s advantage, to his convenience, to disburse the funds by means of a cheque drawn by himself or somebody else.

942. Captain Kelly did say in evidence that it was he who suggested that there should not be any correspondence. I have it on page 16 of the evidence we got—he told people in the bank that there would be no correspondence with the people in Northern Ireland. Captain Kelly agreed to that—it was he who told you that?

—I cannot remember him saying it to me but it would strike me as being a reasonable precaution to have no correspondence in connection with the account.

943. I have one further question and it refers to the cheque which you cashed for Captain Kelly in Crumlin Cross bank. You have not got the original of the signature of Anne O’Brien?

—I think we have it. Mr. O’Connor may have it.

944. I wonder if it would be possible for me to have a look at it?

(Document handed to Deputy Tunney).

945. What I see here is Anne O’Brien’s signature which had been written on some other piece of paper, taken from that and selotaped here.

—That is correct.

946. It did not strike you as peculiar that somebody who had come to you with the name Anne O’Brien, that the “O’Brien” seemed to be written incorrectly?

—No. I have noticed that since but it did not strike me as peculiar.

947. As a bank manager—and I know the caution my manager exercises—it would be required to keep an eye out for signatures? You would admit that?

—Yes.

948. If somebody wrote the name “Anne O’Brein” and brought that signature to you, you would not feel obliged to say to them “Are you happy about that? I never saw such a name”?

—No, I would not. People make most peculiar signatures.

949. Who filled in the card on top here?

—I did.

950. You have written it in here as “Brien”. Surely if you had been guided by the signature that was there you should have written in “Brein”?

—No. Presumably I said to Mr. Kelly “Anne O’Brien” and he said “yes” or he said to me “The account is in the name of Anne O’Brien, here are the specimens of her signature”. I would spell O’Brien my way.

951. Chairman.—On the last day you stated that in respect of the three accounts, the signatures of John White, John Loughran and Roger Murphy were not witnessed.

—That is correct.

952. You stated that the signature of George Dixon was witnessed by a John Lynch? At least that name was on the card.

—Yes.

953. Who is John Lynch?

—I have no idea who John Lynch is.

954. The other signature—Anne O’Brien —was a specimen signature which Mr. Kelly brought with him on a piece of paper which you attached to the signature card— we have just looked at the original now?

—That is right.

955. That is your signature on the bottom of that card?

—It is.

956. It is signed opposite the word “witness”. Does it purport to mean that you witnessed the actual signature?

—No, not in this ease. It means I affixed the specimen signature onto the card and just completed the card by filling in the blank space.

957. Then it is not what it seems to mean?

—No, it is not really.

958. Who requested you to open the subsidiary account?

—Captain Kelly.

959. You mentioned a second phone call from Mr. Fagan. What was that about?

—My recollection of that is that Mr. Fagan rang and said that it had been decided or required that further accounts for the case of disbursement of funds were needed and that a Mr. Kelly would call to make the arrangements.

960. You say that both asked you to open subsidiary accounts. Which one asked you?

—I am sorry it was Captain Kelly who supplied the names.

961. What did you understand by a subsidiary account?

—An account which would be funded from the main account and on which cheques would be drawn or the money otherwise disbursed through it.

962. One that would not be funded from the Red Cross directly?

—No.

963. Was the funding ever discussed with you?

—I do not think so. I understood at the time that these were merely extensions of the main account and, as such, money would be transferred as required—properly transferred from the main account to provide funds in these accounts.

964. How did you come to understand that?

—It must have been in general conversation but this was certainly my understanding of the function of these accounts.

965. General conversation or telephone call—which?

—I think—again subject to memory— that it was in conversation with Captain Kelly.

966. When did you become actually aware that it was being funded from the main account?

—I do not know that I ever became actually aware. Once the account was opened I did not pay much more attention to it. The mechanics of the thing would be dealt with by other officials.

967. In respect of the main account in the names of White, Loughran and Murphy, this account was opened on 11th November, 1969?

—Yes.

968. Was a cheque book issued on that day?

—Our records show that the cheque book was issued on the 10th.

969. You gave your evidence the last day as follows:

I made out this mandate——

——that is, the mandate dealing with this account——

sent it outside to somebody and said “send that down to Mr. Fagan’s office with the cheque book” but I have absolutely no recollection…

Are you able to give us any further information on that?

—I am not, I am afraid. This has caused me tremendous worry over the weekend. Apart from the theory I advanced to Deputy Keating, I cannot make any other explanation for it.

970. You made no attempt to check it out with anyone in the meantime?

—I have discussed it with Mr. Deacon and Mr. Moore but we can throw no light on it.

971. This mandate was dated 10/11/69. Is that correct?

—10th November, 1969.

972. It had three signatures over a stamp?

—Yes.

973. The signatures of White, Loughran and Murphy. Is that correct?

—That is correct.

974. All the other writing in that mandate is in block lettering and I understand from your evidence was put in by you?

—Yes.

975. Was this block lettering all filled in at the same time?

—I cannot be sure of that. If my theory to Deputy Keating is corroborated by somebody else in evidence, it is quite possible that the relief committee of the Belfast Fund was put in, the mandate sent out and the remainder completed when it came back signed.

976. After doing your block lettering, complete or incomplete, you then sent out the mandate?

—Yes. That is my recollection.

977. Presumably for signature?

—Yes.

978. To whom did you send it?

—The only person that I can remember dealing with at the time was Mr. Fagan, so I must assume that it was sent to Mr. Fagan’s office.

979. Who returned it?

—It was returned by Mr.——

980. You are aware, it was not returned by Mr. Fagan?

—No, I did not see it actually returned but it is alleged to have been handed in by Mr. F.

981. Yes. There is a small insert on that mandate handed in by Mr. F. “Mr. F” is not on it. The name is stated on it, but we call him Mr. F. handed in by Mr. F?

—That is right.

982. That is different handwriting from all the others, is it?

—That is Mr. Moore’s handwriting.

983. It is not initialled? It is not the handwriting of the person to whom the mandate was returned?

—Well, I cannot say Mr. Chairman, whether it was actually handed to Mr. Moore but this is his notation.

984. The date on the mandate was November 10th. That was the same date on which the main cheque book was issued?

—That is correct.

985. But two other smaller cheque books were issued at a later date?

—On the 14th.

986. The 14th. To whom was the main cheque book issued?

—My recollection here again is that the mandate, complete or incomplete, plus the cheque book, was sent out together.

987. You sent out the cheque book with the complete or incomplete mandate which was to have the signatures appended to it? You sent out the cheque book before the mandate was signed?

—Yes, it would certainly appear that way.

988. Or simultaneously with it?

—I beg your pardon?

989. Simultaneously or before? Simultaneously, sent out at the same time?

—They would have gone at the same time, I presume.

990. Is it customary to issue a cheque book before you get the specimen signatures on the mandate?

—Provided you are satisfied with whom you are dealing. It very much depends on with whom you are dealing.

991. Are you able to help us in this respect? How did this mandate come into the possession of Mr. F?

—I have no idea, Mr. Chairman.

992. You did not give it to Mr. F?

—No, certainly not. I did not see Mr. F in the office. I saw him once much much later.

993. Then you cannot help us any further in telling us whom you gave the mandate to?

—I cannot, unfortunately.

994. Have you ever dealt with a bank account of this nature before?

—No, I do not think so, as it has subsequently turned out, I do not think so.

995. Have you ever heard of one like it before?

—In that it was public moneys being disbursed for some reason or other? I never dealt with one.

996. In the transfer of money from the Red Cross to the Number 1 Account, we shall call it, the White, Loughran and Murphy account, the main account at Baggot Street, it was transferred under different forms of documentation. We have the documentation covering all these transfers except the first one of £7,500 which Deputy H. Gibbons has already mentioned?

—Yes.

997. Now these documents are mostly typed and some of them have been signed by I think it was the agent or assistant agent of the Bank of Ireland. Various terms have been used on them in type, but as well as such terms as “Northern Ireland Relief” there is also written in longhand on each one of them, most of them anyway, “White, Loughran and Murphy” in longhand. Were these names put on these advice notes, were they put on in the Bank of Ireland or were they put on in your office?

—I would say they were put on in our office. In fact, I am absolutely sure they were put on in our office.

998. On whose authority were they appended to each advice note?

—This would just be a cautionary, an explanatory note for our ledger department because the account was indexed under W and not B. It would be just for sorting really. That is all. There is no significance.

999. Mr. Walsh, on 1st July in a Garda statement you stated, I understand:

I cannot say what official dealt with the person or persons who opened the account but I did not.

Is there a conflict here between that and your further evidence or would you like to elaborate on it?

—Well, there is. At the time my recollection, as you have already gathered, my recollection of the actual mandate and the actual opening of the account is very, very vague and in July I had not an opportunity of seeing the documentation. At that stage I could not remember dealing with a mandate at all, but once I saw the mandate I realised that I had completed the mandate, so I must have been connected with it.

1000. Up to the time that you wrote these names on the mandate, “White, Loughran and Murphy”, whether you wrote them after you sent out the mandate of whether you wrote them after you got back the mandate, you had not up to that time met Captain Kelly? Had you?

—No, I do not think so.

1001. As regards the cautionary notes on the ledger heading, the accounts of Dixon and O’Brien, did you state to the Garda that you did not know how the instructions were received?

—That is right, yes.

1002. You know now?

—Well, I am assuming now that I gave those instructions to our ledger department.

1003. You do not know to whom the first bank book was issued?

—The first cheque book?

1004. The first cheque book, I am sorry?

—No, Mr. Chairman. It went out presumably at the same time as the mandate and I cannot recall how or by whom, how it went out or by whom it was collected.

1005. And the other two cheque books, to whom were they issued?

—They were issued to Captain Kelly.

1006. Were any of the returned cheques withdrawn in your time?

—I do not think so. I could check on that but I do not think so.

1007. You were in the bank up to the 24th December?

—That is right.

1008. Perhaps this is a hypothetical question but if you had remained there as manager, what would you have done with those returned cheques?

—The instruction was that they were not to be sent out but it could quite possibly happen that they would be sent out by mistake. I would not have done anything about them myself. Once instructions are issued one must depend on somebody else to make sure they are carried out.

1009. These instructions covered the returning of cheques to the people who wrote them?

—Yes.

1010. But these instructions were subsequently ignored. It that correct?

—It seems to have transpired that some statements did go out.

1011. You realise that Mr. Fagan may deny all knowledge of these instructions which you had typed on the ledger?

—I do.

1012. Would you agree with me that Captain Kelly had nothing to do with the opening of the first account?

—I would so far as I can recollect. My recollection is that I did not meet Captain Kelly until some days afterwards.

1013. You have already been asked about the cheque which you cashed in Crumlin Cross but we shall go over it again. This was a Lower Baggot Street, Munster and Leinster cheque dated 15/4/70 with the signature of Anne O’Brien and it was “pay cash, £300”. It was not endorsed—is that correct?

—I do not know. I really did not look. A cheque need not be endorsed if it is payable to cash.

1014. It bears two Munster and Leinster, Crumlin Cross West stamps, one on 16/4/70 and the other on the 6th of the 11th. Both stamps bear the word “teller”. The earlier one is marked 1. and the other one is marked 2. On the cheque is written “return to drawer”. You have stated in evidence that Anne O’Brien’s signature was a specimen signature which Mr. Kelly brought you on a piece of paper to Baggot Street?

—That is right.

1015. On the last occasion you stated that payment out of money by a bank official would be all right provided the signature on the card coincided with the signature on the instrument withdrawing the money and provided you can be reasonably sure of that?

—Yes.

1016. How were you sure of the signature on that when you were in Crumlin if the specimen card containing the signature rested in Baggot Street?

—That is a case where one could not be absolutely sure but it is normal banking practice that if anybody presents a cheque drawn on another office, the teller has to depend on the person with whom he is dealing.

1017. Has that cheque which was returned to drawer been honoured since?

—No.

1018. Who is at a loss if it is not honoured?

—Presumably the bank—I hope.

1019. Could you tell us how a bank official in Grafton Street would be expected to cope with a situation where he would be faced with a demand on a cheque to Messrs. Wellux for £8,500 or how an official in the Bank of Ireland would be expected to cope if he was faced with presentation of a cheque to Mr. Séamus Brady for £1,000?

—Presumably in these cases the cheques were lodged to accounts. In the Grafton Street case I would say that it is almost certain it was lodged to an account because it was payable to a limited company. A bank official cannot cash a cheque that is payable to a limited company. So, when it is returned you debit the account to which it was lodged and reimburse yourself in that way. It is possible that cash was given in the case of the other one but I do not know. He would have recourse to the person who cashed it or lodged it

1020. I want to ask you about the opening lodgment in the Dixon account. You might have the figure before you. In that account the opening lodgment was on November 14th. I have already asked you when you became aware of the transfers from the main account to the Dixon account. This amount is for £11,450. On the same date there was removed by cash from the main account the amount of £7,000. Am I to take it that this is a transfer on the same day from the main account to open the Dixon account for £11,450?

—I examined the records and I would agree that the £7,000 was part of the £11,450.

1021. You have seen the figures for the Clones account?

—Yes.

1022. There was a figure from the Clones account of £4,450 which was by cheque?

—That is right.

1023. Would it be reasonable to surmise that that opening account was secured by that transfer from the No. 1 account and the transfer of £4,450 from the Clones account?

—This is the conclusion I have reached. I have examined these things and I must assume that the £4,450 was a cheque on the Clones account.

1024. What would be the mechanics of the transfer of £7,000 from the No. 1 account to the No. 2 account? Is it merely a book-keeping ledger entry or does the person come in, draw the money and hold it in his hand for a while before paying it back over the counter?

—No, the person who wants to make the transfer would draw a cheque on the account from which the money is to be transferred and this in turn would be lodged to another account.

1025. So that it is an internal book-keeping transaction?

—Yes, except that the cheque making the transfer is signed by the third party, the person who operates the account.

1026. You will see there also that in the Anne O’Brien account which was opened on 14th November the opening account was £2,500. Can you guide us as to where that money came from?

—I cannot. There seems to be no correlation between the £2,500 and any of the other accounts as far as I can see.

1027. But in respect of the opening account of George Dixon you are not able to give us any further evidence, documentary or otherwise, to substantiate the surmise, assumption which I have put to you?

—I have seen the original lodgment of it.

1028. Have you not seen the Munster and Leinster lodgment docket in which there are two figures, one £7,000 and the other £4,450?

—Yes, I have seen that.

1029. Would that appear to substantiate the assumption that the account was so opened?

—This is where I made my assumption, when I saw this docket.

1030. Is there any similar docket available in respect of the Anne O’Brien account, the opening figure there of £2,500?

—I have not seen one.

1031. I think that is all, Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much.

1032. Deputy Barrett.—Just one question. Since the cheque for £300 which you cashed for Captain Kelly was returned to your branch, has it been suggested to Captain Kelly that he might relodge this money in your branch?

—Not by me. I have had no contact with anybody since then.

1033. Is it normal to suggest to the person that they might relodge when the funds cannot be——

—It is normal to make approaches to the person who cashed or negotiated the cheque but in this case I have done nothing. I did not know what to do really. I am waiting to see what will happen.

1034. Deputy Briscoe.—I was just going to ask you on that question, Mr. Walsh, when did you discover that the cheque had bounced, the £300?

—After the banks reopened, after the resumption.

1035. I see. Did you ring up Captain Kelly to notify him?

—No.

1036. You did not do anything?

—I have done absolutely nothing.

1037. What would you normally do if a cheque of mine came back to you like that?

—I would contact you, yes.

1038. Was there any reason why you did not contact him?

—No, I was waiting to see how the various accounts would be finalised or worked out and hoping to recover my money in this——

1039. Deputy Collins.—You say that you do not know who obtained the cheque book to operate the main account. Is it not usual when issuing a cheque book, to have the customer sign a chit for it?

—It is done but it is not essential. If somebody rings up for a cheque book you send it out, you do not get them to sign it.

1040. Would you not feel that in this particular account, it being such an unusual account——

—It is unusual now but at that time it was not, to me.

1041. I would suggest, with all due respects, that it was an unusual account in so far as you had a phone call from a high civil servant that moneys were coming from sources which you did not know, possibly, as yourself said, Bernadette Devlin, possibly State funds, certainly public moneys, and surely even at that stage you must have realised that it was an unusual account, to say the least?

—It depends on the interpretation of the word “unusual”.

1042. Well, out of the ordinary?

—Possibly. I did not treat it with any particular significance. It was just another account as far as I was concerned.

1043. And you did not think it would be wise to get a chit signed for the cheque book?

—No.

1044. You said earlier this morning that some statements were sent out?

—I understand so, yes.

1045. Can you tell me when and to whom?

—I can tell you when but I cannot tell you to whom. On the 22nd of January, I think. I am not quite sure of the notations on the ledger cards. The 22nd of January possibly a statement was sent out. I beg your pardon. I do not want to appear silly in this but the method of recording the issue of a statement has changed since I left the branch but Mr. Moore would be able to give you precise information on this.

1046. You refer it to Mr. Moore then?

—On this question, yes. I had left the branch at that stage.

1047. You are aware of the differences in spelling on the Anne O’Brien cheques?

—I am not. I am aware that the signature was not particularly clear but I did not examine the individual cheques.

1048. Certainly, looking at them, they are Brien and Brein and Brn?

—I was not so aware. They would seem to me to be written by the same person despite the apparent irregularities. People do alter their signatures slightly. It depends on the surface you are writing on, the type of pen.

1049. Finally, without mentioning names, if you think it proper, are you aware of the people who operated the main account? Did you come in contact with any of them?

—I do not know the true identities of the people who operated the main account. I presume they are known to somebody.

1050. Perhaps we could get further help in private from Mr. Walsh in this matter of identifying the operators of the main account?

1051. Chairman.—I do not understand.

1052. Deputy Collins.—He does not recognise who operated the main account, he does not know who they are, but perhaps if we had other information we could go into private session at a later date to try to establish the identity of them with Mr. Walsh?

1053. Chairman.—We had better discuss that among ourselves, whether we will do that or not.

1054 Deputy Burke.—Mr. Walsh will surely make himself available if we wish.

Mr. Walsh.—Absolutely.

1055. Chairman.—Yes.

1054. Deputy Collins.—Are you aware of any person other than Captain Kelly who operated the subsidiary accounts?

—No, I had no direct dealings with the actual encashment of cheques. If I happened to be at the counter I could have helped somebody make out a lodgment or initial a cheque but it had no particular significance. I have seen other people in the office either cashing a cheque or making a lodgment.

1057. On the subsidiary accounts?

—Yes, I think so but it could have been on the main account.

1058. In your statement to the Garda on the 1st July, 1970 you stated: “On or about the 11th of November, 1969 I received a telephone call …”. In actual fact the mandate for the main account was made out on the 10th of November?

—That is right.

1059. You are satisfied that this is just an error in recollection.

—At the time I was making the statement to the Garda it was completely out of my head. I had not the benefit of examining— dates meant nothing to me at that stage, really.

1060. That is all, thank you.

1061. Deputy FitzGerald—Could I see the original of the mandate?

—Yes, certainly.

(Document produced).

1062. The reason I asked was simply to see whether there is any evidence at all in the writing, ink or anything like that, that would suggest that the names were written at a time different to the title of the account. I have the impression that the pen was not writing very well when you wrote the first name, John White, and that it improved as you went along but there is no very clear distinction between the last words: “All of Hook Street, Belfast” and the words: “Relief Committee of Belfast: Fund for the Relief of Distress”. I just thought there might be something. I do not know whether there is any possibility of any scientific evidence telling us they were written at different times but I doubt it?

—It is only a theory of course.

1063. Yes, it is a theory but it is an important one as you do not seem to be clear in your own recollection or as clear as seemed at first sight that Mr. Fagan did give you the names. This at least, if your recollection were at fault, would explain how something could have happened. But what you have, in fact, been pressed about so much is the second phone call because, while your theory would offer a possible way in which, remembering the natural deficiencies that can occur in recollection at this stage, the names could have been entered into the book without Mr. Fagan knowing about them. The second phone call, according to you, and you seem to have a clearer recollection of it, was the one in which Mr. Fagan asked you to open the two subsidiary accounts, of which he says he has no knowledge. Would you tell us how strong is your recollection of that second phone call?

—My recollection is that the opening of further accounts was that Mr. Kelly would make the necessary arrangements.

1064. My understanding of the evidence is that the names in that case came definitely from Captain Kelly and not Mr. Fagan.

—Yes.

1065. And you are quite definite that Mr. Fagan rang you a second time and spoke to you about the opening of a subsidiary account in different names?

—I am not quite definite about anything at this stage, but my recollection is that two further accounts were mentioned.

1066. And there was a second phone call?

—Yes.

1067. You recall the second phone call?

—Yes.

1068. And your recollection is that the second phone call was about this?

—Yes.

1069. On the question of notice in the ledger, I am not entirely clear about the origins of this. The wording of it is, I understand—“Do not send out statement. No correspondence to be sent out. All inquiries to A.J. Fagan.” Might I be clear as to what led you to write this or instruct this to be written on the account? Was it in relation to the fact that the account related to Northern Ireland?

—It related to the fact that we did not know who the precise signatories were. It was a reasonable precaution to send these private documents—all bank cheques are private documents—to send these particular documents to the source of the account.

1070. That is not what you sent: Send out statement and correspondence to A.J. Fagan; do not send out correspondence; no correspondence to be sent out; all inquiries to A.J. Fagan?

—It is just a matter of wording.

1071. In effect, it is not, because the consequence of that would be that Mr. Fagan did not, in fact, ever get a statement, subject to future evidence, and, therefore, if he did not know about them originally, he had no means of knowing the account was in the wrong names. Why did you choose that particular form, that the statement should not be sent out even to Mr. Fagan?

—I cannot see any significance in the words myself.

1072. You may not have thought it significant at the time but it has proved of immense significance later?

—Oh, I can see your point now, but at the time “Look, any correspondence on that account, get in touch with Mr. Fagan” or words to that effect—this would not be a written instruction from me; it would be verbal.

1073. A verbal instruction?

—Yes.

1074. I see. Can you say when you gave that instruction? Would it have been when that was written?

—It would have been almost immediately, I would say.

1075. Was there anything unusual in regard to the opening of the Dixon account in the fact that it appears to be opened in two cheques made out to cash? One was a cheque which would just have been made out in the bank at that time on another account?

—I could not say whether the cheque was made out in the bank or whether it was brought in completed. It was encashed the same day. If someone brings in a cheque payable to cash properly drawn he can do absolutely what he likes with it.

1076. You were asked about a reference to Cork; one of the lodgments has “Cork” opposite it and you think this might have been cash?

—I think it is a cheque it is opposite.

1077. It is in the statement?

—It is opposite a cheque and I would suggest this is a mistype. This is only my opinion.

1078. Our problem is that we do not have these cheques. In the light of your instruction I assume no statement was sent out as there was nobody to send statements to other than Mr. Fagan, who did not get them. It now appears that statements were sent out to someone. Is that the main reason you have not got the cheques; they were sent out to someone with the statement?

—That is right.

1079. My final point is in connection with the lodgments that came into the account from the Irish Red Cross in rather curiously different forms. I am wondering if you know of any reason for this? Some of them were made out to the Belfast Aid account—for example, in the order in which I have them here, that of 8th April, 1970. We have one of £7,000 on 25th March which is a lodgment which seems to have been lodged in Anne Street in the bank and not passed through the Bank of Ireland. Is that right?

—I would not appear to have a copy of that one. £7,000—oh, yes.

1080. The interesting thing about this is this lodgment. Is this a lodgment slip made out in the Bank of Ireland? It is made out in Baggot Street.

—This voucher was made out in Baggot Street, yes.

1081. What was it based on?

—It looks like a transfer. Excuse me a moment.

1082. I wonder have you got the transfer document?

—The document saying £7,000 would be negotiable.

1083. Yes?

—It would go back to the Bank of Ireland where the money originated. This says “Dame Street”.

1084. Oh, sorry. Is that “Dame Street”?

—Yes. The original is clearer.

1085. I am sorry. This came through the Bank of Ireland in Dame Street?

—No. I presume our Dame Street office.

1086. Why would the Bank of Ireland, given a draft by the Irish Red Cross to your account, lodge it in Dame Street?

—I do not know.

1087. You see, this lodgment is one which has come through another channel in your bank and yet it has White, Loughran and Murphy on it?

—The actual lodgment, I take it, was completed in Dame Street in response to a request presumably.

1088. What was the request?

—There are various ways of transferring money. Instructions can go by document or they can go by telephone. I was not there.

1089. You were not there at the time. This is a matter we shall have to take up with Mr. Fagan, I think. There is one other point. There is a lodgment for £4,000 on which there appears to be no date and, therefore, I cannot identify it to you. It is just made out to White, Loughran and Murphy. There is no date?

—It is 25th March, 1970.

1090. How do you know it is March?

—This is the original.

(Document produced).

1091. I am afraid it is a problem of the photostat. It does not come out at all. How would that have been lodged?

—Again, possibly, a telephone call.

1092. Not backed by any subsequent documentation?

—It is not necessary to give it in writing. One of the methods of transferring money is through a telephone call and subsequently it would be transferred on documentation. In this instance I could not tell you the precise method used.

1093. When you got lodgments made out in this way to White, Loughran and Murphy one wonders what form of communication they came in and how such a lodgment was put into this account?

—This voucher was again made out in Baggot Street and as I explained to the Chairman—one notices that on the Bank of Ireland transfer forms one here is made out “Belfast Aid Account” but “White, Loughran and Murphy” is written in pen on it. This is the internal notation for our own ledger department.

1094. The reason I ask this is that we are concerned with the question of how money which the Department of Finance thought they were lodging to accounts in certain names universally ended up in a different account altogether. It is difficult to explain this at first sight.

—I can see that.

1095. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Getting back to the notation on the White, Loughran and Murphy account “Do not send out statement. No correspondence to be sent out”, would it be quite possible that somebody other than Mr. Fagan sent this to you?

—It would be possible, yes

1096. On the 10th November—this is the opening day of the account—Mr. Fagan wrote to Miss Murphy of the Irish Red Cross:

The Minister would appreciate if you would transfer a sum of £7,500 to the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street, Dublin, today if possible. The cheque should be made payable to the Bank and the covering note addressed to Mr. William Walsh, Deputy Manager. At your convenience, please, perhaps you would complete and return the attached to me.

Have you any recollection, Mr. Walsh, of that covering note?

—No. I do not recollect any covering note. The lodgment would come by way of transfer from the Bank of Ireland by order of the Red Cross.

1097. Deputy MacSharry.—I have just one question, Mr. Walsh. Did anybody ever explain the security aspect of this account to you?

—We did not discuss it particularly apart from the fact that the money had to be distributed discretely.

1098. Yes, but this is the point. Who told you about this security aspect of it? Who explained this to you? I do not think this question was covered before.

—No, I was not asked that. My original discussion with Mr. Fagan was that this money was available and the Government could not be directly involved with the disbursement. It was for this particular purpose of relieving distress in Belfast. As such, I inferred that there was a certain amount of security involved. This is the only reference to it which I can recall.

1099. This would explain your reference at the top of the accounts held in the bank “Do not send out any correspondence” and so on, because that must have been put there for a purpose. Somebody told you or advised you that this was a security operation that needed this kind of guarding?

—Not necessarily. It was obvious to me that this was a discreet operation, from the very start.

1100. It was only obvious because of the way it came to you?

—One way or another it was obvious to me this was a discreet operation.

1101. It was only because it became obvious to you that you felt the security involved? It was not because you were told that this was a security operation—

—No, I do not think I was specifically told.

1102. You were not? Fair enough.

1103. Deputy Treacy.—Were there any moneys deposited from any outside sources other than on the instructions of Mr. Fagan via the Red Cross to the Belfast Aid Account or the fund for the relief of distress in Northern Ireland?

—Not to my knowledge but that is something that could be checked.

1104. You left on Christmas Eve and the first lodgments from outside sources—say, the 12,000 American dollars—were lodged on the 7th January. Had you any inkling there might be moneys from sources of this kind lodged with these accounts?

—No. I had none, anyway.

1105. Deputy Tunney.—I have not a proper recollection of how you replied when I asked you this before about Captain Kelly’s evidence. He replied “If you mean did I go to the Manager and suggest it, yes”. Later on when asked he said:

I would certainly have told the people in the bank that there would be no correspondence with the people in Northern Ireland and it probably would be a logical follow up from that the correspondence would be through me or through Mr. Fagan.

He was asked:

On the same day, that is the 14th November, was there at your instigation another account opened in that bank in the name of a woman?

Captain Kelly: That is correct.

Bearing that in mind and bearing in mind the statements of Mr. Fagan would it not appear to you now that Captain Kelly was the man who went through the mechanics of opening the accounts and that it was he who told you there should not be any correspondence with the people in Northern Ireland?

—It is possible that this was mentioned in discussion.

1106. Thank you.

1107. Chairman.—Thank you very much, Mr. Walsh.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m. until 2.45 p.m.

1108. Chairman.—I call Mr. Deacon.

Mr. Herbert Thomas Deacon Sworn and examined.

1109. Chairman.—Mr. Deacon, you are the manager of the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street.

—Yes.

1110. And you have been manager since June, 1968, at this branch?

—That is correct.

1111. You have given us a submission last week?

—Yes.

1112. This submission is a true account of circumstances as far as you know?

—Yes.

1113. I will draw your attention to one paragraph or subparagraph in it, one sentence in the first page. I will read it to you: “On one occasion I recollect speaking to Mr. Fagan about his providing for a cheque for £12,000 which had been drawn on the account of George Dixon for cash on 12th February, 1970”——

—I am sorry. I just cannot find my statement at the moment. Yes?

1114. Was that a conversation or a phone call?

—A phone call, I think.

1115. And you talked to Mr. Fagan personally?

—Yes.

1116. Could you recall and give us in your own words the conversation which took place?

—Do you mind if I have a look at the statements at the time? This is in connection now with the George Dixon account, I think?

1117. Chairman.—Yes?

—Yes. I can quite imagine that as far, that what should have happened is that at that particular stage the account of George Dixon showed an overdraft of £10,200 and I could imagine that I was a bit worried with an overdraft as to that size and requested that funds would be transferred in the usual way.

1118. When you spoke to Mr. Fagan, did you give him any further information as to the nature of the account?

—Oh well, I would feel that I could only have said that the George Dixon account is overdrawn.

1119. Well, this is very important, Mr. Deacon: did you actually mention the name “George Dixon” to Mr. Fagan?

—Well, now, that—I could not recollect that, but the account which was overdrawn in my books was the George Dixon account.

1120. You did not make any memo of the conversation at the time?

—No. If I did it has disappeared. I would not imagine I would have made any. It would be quite a casual phone call.

1121. It was not followed by a confirmatory letter?

—No.

1122. And Mr. Fagan was in no way surprised at the phone call?

—I do not think so.

1123. But you are unable to tell us definitely whether you mentioned the name George Dixon?

—I expect it could be possible that I said an account is overdrawn but I would imagine it would be most unlikely. I think I would have said the George Dixon account.

1124. Now, Mr. Deacon, I want to take you over the three accounts. If you have the documentation of the accounts there in front of you, according to your returns this account which ultimately amounted to £63,993 10s was opened on the 11th November, 1969, and it was withdrawn leaving a balance of £2,805 2s 6d by April 28th, 1970?

—Yes. I think I might explain at this stage that the copy which everybody has is a copy of the account taken about a fortnight ago and that the balance of £2,842 17s 6d has since been withdrawn and returned to the Department of Finance.

1125. Yes. There are 11 lodgments into this account?

—Yes, sir.

1126. Ten are voted lodgments, ten through the Red Cross through the Bank of Ireland?

—Yes.

1127. And there is one non-voted lodgment which came directly from the Department of Finance to your bank in the form of United States moneys?

—Yes.

1128. So that the voted money that came to the first account then was £59,000?

—Yes. Well, without totting it I presume that that is the figure.

1129. We have documentation for all these transfers to the Bank of Ireland except the first lodgment of £7,500 on November 12th. That has been discussed already today?

—Yes.

1130. There is no documentation to cover that?

—That is correct.

1131. Can you throw any explanation on the absence of such?

—That sum of money was transferred in a manner I take it such as—like a Bank Giro system at the moment and the actual docket lodging the money is put with the person’s pay cheques and returned to him as evidence where the money came from.

1132. Now, in this varied documentation the names of White, Loughran and Murphy appear several times in longhand. Now, some of these documents were passed into your bank in the time of Mr. Walsh?

—Yes.

1133. But further documents of the same nature passed into your bank under your managership?

—That is correct.

1134. And the same thing happened. These names, White, Loughran and Murphy were added in in longhand?

—Yes.

1135. To your knowledge, how did that happen?

—Well, I can say in the first instance, the first one I have I think before me is £2,000 on 24th November. You will see that that transfer is made to “Irish Red Cross Society”.

1136. Yes?

—Now, I happened to be attending to the mail in the morning when that transfer came in and I said to the official more or less in charge of ledgers—Mr. Morrissey, in fact—I said “you cannot put that—I presume that money is intended for the Belfast Relief Fund Account, but,” I said “we cannot put it there until we get clearance from the bank from which it came.” Later during the day Mr. Morrissey called in and said “That lodgment is O.K., Manager. It is for the Belfast account”, having verified it.

1137. Then who wrote in longhand the names White, Loughran and Murphy?

—I think that is Mr. Moore’s writing, Mr. Tom Moore.

1138. And were these longhand names, White, Loughran and Murphy, were they, as far as you know, in all cases put on in Baggot Street?

—There is possibly one, £3,000 on 6th February, 1970. Now I could not recognise the writing in that particular instance but all the others were, I think.

1139. There is one for which you might have some doubt?

—Yes.

1140. Is there any means of checking up on that?

—Am I permitted to ask either of my officials here?

1141. Well, they are not under oath at the moment?

—I know.

1142. You can consult them, of course?

—Yes, Mr. Moore seems to think it is an official in our office. So that all those names would appear to have been added in our office.

1143. This account was overdrawn only once, from your returns, and that was on February 5th, 1970 for less than £2,000?

—That is correct.

1144. And that was made good immediately?

—That is correct.

1145. And that was made good immediately—fairly soon?

—Yes. A matter of four days.

1146. Now, the account was paid out in my tot here in 16 cash payments totalling £30,150?

—Yes.

1147. £2,000 was paid to J. J. Kelly?

—Yes.

1148. And £29,000 was transferred to the subsidiary account of George Dixon?

—Well, I would have to have time to check up on that.

1149. Well, there are only—I think, it is £13,000, £12,000 and £4,000?

—Yes, those are as specified in the ledger.

1150. Specified?

—Specified, yes.

1151. Now, in this account cash paid out is in many cases, withdrawals in many cases, put under a number. Would I be correct in saying that wherever a number appears in your bank account that means it was paid cash?

—No, that is the number of the cheque which withdrew it. That would be the number of the cheque.

1152. But where there is not a person mentioned then the account is withdrawn in cash, is that right?

—Well, where there is no person mentioned the cheque would be made out payable “pay cash”.

1153. Where there is no name?

—Yes. It is just cash.

1154. That is what I want to get at. Are the lodgment dockets available for the last five withdrawals from this account to show how the Dixon account was built up?

—The lodgments available?

1155. Are the lodgment dockets?

—For lodgments to the account?

1156. Yes?

—For the last five? I think they are. Excuse me, Deputy, is it the White, Loughran and Murphy account you are interested in now?

1157. Yes?

—I have the actual lodgments, yes.

1158. How many cheques have we? How many cheques are available to you on this account?

—Five cheques.

1159. Five cheques. The others are— there would be 15 others, is that correct?

—That is correct.

1160. These 15 have been withdrawn?

—Yes.

1161. Or sent to somebody?

—Yes.

1162. Well, were they sent out by the bank or did somebody call for them?

—That I could not tell you.

1163. Who were they sent to?

—I am afraid I am not able to say. I do not know. I would imagine that somebody associated with this account came in and asked for a statement?

1164. But is there no—has no slip been signed by the person who took the cheques?

—No.

1165. To satisfy the bank that they did give them to some person?

—No, the only indication we have is that on 22nd January, 1970, a statement was handed out and again on 13th March, 1970.

1166. Who would ordinarily send out these cheques in the bank?

—In the normal course any customer would probably call in and ask any official he saw available could he have his statement.

1167. His statement?

—His statement. And the cheques would go with it.

1168. But if a person did not call for these things?

—They would be posted. In this particular instance they would not be posted because the address was not sufficient in the first instance.

1169. But there was an entry, a ledger entry, put in by Mr. Walsh, that they were not to be sent out. Does this issue of these returned cheques contravene that ledger instruction?

—In actual fact it does but people who put away cheques and cheque statements against ledger balances going out, they are normally very junior officials. One of them obviously came along, put the date on the ledger and obviously did not look at the top of the ledger to see there was no statement to be handed out—this human error.

1170. Was there also a statement given out from the bank with the cheques, the returned cheques?

—I should imagine so. The returned cheques would go with the statement.

1171. Would one statement or two statements have been given out?

—It would appear that two statements would be given out.

1172. Can you give the dates?

—One on 20th January, 1970 and the other on 16th March, 1970.

1173. To return for a moment to the George Dixon account, this account of £41,450, the first lodgment was on 14th November. We have already discussed how the £11,420 might arise. You were here when we discussed that?

—Yes.

1174. Would you be in agreement with what Mr. Walsh said on that?

—I would be in full agreement. I cannot tell you what he said now, but I was in agreement with him.

1175. The next entry—there are only five lodgments in this—was on 6th January, for £13,000?

—That is right.

1176. On the same date an equivalent amount was drawn from the main account, an amount of £13,000, for the George Dixon account?

—That is right.

1177. Would that then be a transfer?

—No. Obviously a cheque was presented to us payable to George Dixon and we lodged the £13,000 to George Dixon’s account. No cash would have been transferred.

1178. You debited the main account and credited the George Dixon account on the same date?

—That is right.

1179. Then, on 20th February, the next entry is £12,000 to the George Dixon account?

—That is right.

1180. On the same date you have debited the main account with £12,000 and credited it to the George Dixon account?

—That is correct.

1181. Again, on 13th March, you have debited the main account with £4,000 and you credited an equivalent amount to the George Dixon account?

—That is correct.

1182. On 25th March there was a withdrawal of £4,000 from the main account and on the same date there was credited £1,000 to the George Dixon account and £1,000 to the Anne O’Brien account?

—That is correct.

1183. Would these be operated in the same way as the previous ones?

—I would imagine that in this particular instance—could I look at the actual cheques —£4,000 was withdrawn from the main account, £1,000 went to Ann O’Brien, £1,000 to George Dixon and £2,000 was paid in cash.

1184. So there was a considerable amount of that money transferred from the No. 1 account to the George Dixon account?

—Yes, there was £1,000 of it. There was £1,000 to George Dixon, £1,000 to Anne O’Brien and £2,000 taken in cash.

1185. In toto, therefore, there was a movement from the account in Baggot Street, a transfer, of £29,000 to the Dixon account. If you add up the four figures you will get that?

—That is correct.

1186. Plus the £11,420 which was a composite figure when the account was opened. I think it was £11,450?

—Yes.

1187. This account, I think, was overdrawn twice?

—That is correct.

1188. It was overdrawn on one occasion, I think on 20th February?

—On 12th February it was overdrawn £10,200.

1189. And this was made good by a lodgment on 20th February?

—That is correct.

1190. That was the time you had occasion to ring up Mr. Fagan?

—That is correct.

1191. After that was there another overdrawal?

—There was, on 4th March. It was overdrawn £38,000 following a withdrawal of £4,000.

1192. You made no representations to Mr. Fagan on that occasion?

—I probably did, or if I did not do it myself I asked some other official to do it.

1193. You might not be able to answer this but there was from this account on the payment side a number of cash withdrawals —from the George Dixon account?

—Yes.

1194. In fact there were cash withdrawals to the amount of £38,000 altogether?

—Possibly.

1195. With the exception of three transfers to the Anne O’Brien account and the balance of £2,000, all of that Dixon account was withdrawn in cash—the George Dixon account of £41,000?

—Without seeing the cheques I could not say that. At the beginning of the account where there are the numbers of the particular cheques it is not stated in the ledger that that is cash. It could have been payable to any particular individual. It need not necessarily have been cash.

1196. Many of us took it in looking at your returns that wherever you put in a name that money was paid to that particular person and wherever a name was not entered cash was paid.

—You probably are correct but there is no guarantee about it. All we need to put into an account are the numbers of cheques. It seems to be a coincidence that in this particular account there are some names mentioned.

1197. When a cheque is passed through clearance, take it that a cheque is drawn on your bank in Grafton Street, that cheque then goes for clearance. Is that correct? What is the machinery?

—A cheque drawn?

1198. A cheque presented for negotiation in Grafton Street—a cheque drawn on your bank.

—That cheque would go from Grafton Street to the central clearing on the day it is cashed or negotiated in Grafton Street and on the following day it would be sent from the central clearing to us, to arrive the following day. So that from the first day it would be two days before it would be in our account.

1199. Do cheques not go to the head office?

—No. They go from the branch to the clearing and from the clearing to the branch on which they were drawn.

1200. Can you tell us whether any record is kept at clearance of cheques passing through it?

—No.

1201. Clearance is just a sorting office?

—Yes.

1202. There is no record, photostatic or otherwise, of cheques which pass through clearance?

—No. If the cheques were travelling by post from a country branch to the clearing there is a record kept.

1203. But for city branches?

—No.

1204. So that when you send back the returned cheques to whatever person hold the account, if it happens to be in Dublin there is no further method of checking on these cheques?

—No, I would not think so. If the cheque was negotiated in Dublin in the first instance there is no way of following it up.

1205. Deputy R. Burke.—In your statement you say you were absent from the bank on the occasion when this account was opened; your deputy manager was there.

—I do not know that I was absent, but I was not dealing with it.

1206. In what terms were you advised by Mr. Walsh of the opening of these accounts? What did he tell you about them?

—I would imagine that he advised me that a new account had been opened for the Belfast Relief Fund through Mr. Fagan of the Department of Finance.

1207. What did he say to you of the manner of conducting the accounts? You say in your statement that he had so advised you.

—I subsequently knew of the two subsidiary accounts, as we will call them.

1208. When you say subsequently, what period of time had elapsed?

—It could be two or three days, possibly.

1209. You say you had several telephone conversations with Mr. Fagan about these?

—I had, certainly, possibly three or four.

1210. Did Mr. Fagan ring you or did you ring Mr. Fagan?

—I would imagine when the account was overdrawn I rang Mr. Fagan.

1211. These cheques were in all cases, you say, drawn strictly in accordance with authorities and specimen signatures?

—Yes.

1212. Yet today it was shown here that one of the signatures was misspelt. Did this not come up for examination?

—I think if you look at the signature card in that particular instance there are three signatures given and I think it is the difference between an “i” and an “e”, which in an ordinary signature is very seldom recognisable.

1213. Some people can be very strict on how one signs a cheque, as I knew to my cost on one occasion. A note on the ledger card shows that the returned cheques for £35,000 were collected on 22nd January and 16th March, 1970. Am I wrong about the 16th March?

—That is correct; 16th March.

1214. Can you say, or maybe you have already stated, who collected these?

—I could not say. I am not aware who collected them.

1215. Could it be said that whichever official gave out these documents was, in fact, acting contrary to the ledger statement about no correspondence and so on?

—On the George Dixon account I do not think there is any notation about handing out cheques. There is nothing about cheques on that particular one.

1216. On 20th February, 1970, the sum of £12,000 was lodged but the name of the person who made the lodgment cannot be deciphered according to one evidence we have got. Is this so?

—To which account do you refer?

1217. To the George Dixon account?

—On what date?

1218. 20th February.

—That is written by myself. The entire docket is written by myself.

1219. I see. Has your head office been in touch with you at any time since these accounts were opened in regard to the accounts and to any queries about them?

—No, except when the original Arms Trial was going on. During the period of the banks closure I was contacted on that occasion to come up and collect certain data for evidence for the trial.

1220. Yes. Since the trial have you been instructed by any authority to keep an eye out for any possible documentation that might pass through the bank?

—No.

1221. The gardaí have not pressed you to——

—I have been asked not to send out any dockets, not to give any dockets I have to anybody, and that has been done.

1222. It transpired, I believe, during the trial that some money was taken out in English notes from the bank. Have you any knowledge of this?

—Certainly on three or four occasions, I think, I am aware that money was withdrawn in English money.

1223. Would the bank in normal circumstances have sums up to £10,000 available in English denominations?

—When a large withdrawal was made I was contacted prior to it and asked to have English notes available.

1224. Did this in any way strike you as being unusual in relation to the events?

—No, because of the nature of the account I did not think it was unusual.

1225. Mr. Fagan, at the Arms Trial, said he was positive that he had no conversation with you about the overdrawing of the subsidiary account until the end of April. One of your officials—Mr. Morrissey—in a document put before us today said it was his duty to deal with referred cheques and that in the month of February, 1970, a cheque for £12,000 was drawn on the Dixon account in favour of cash; that he telephoned the Department of Finance and asked for Mr. Fagan but, in fact, was put in touch with a Miss Morrissey in that Department; and that he discreetly asked that the fund should be brought into a proper state. I also understand that you, or one of your officials, was told that a Vote would be necessary—I presume a Vote in the Dáil—before this could be brought into funding.

—Yes.

1226. In fact, the Vote did not take place until 18th March. I do not think that you should be aware of this but, in fact, for our general knowledge the Vote was not required. This would seem to indicate that some people in the Department of Finance knew about the subsidiary accounts and had them funded.

—I was on the telephone to Mr. Fagan and I was a bit perturbed on the delay in getting in money and having an account overdrawn for a person I had never seen. To put me at ease Mr. Fagan said: “We cannot get these that quickly, we have to wait for a Vote” or something of that nature. That is the only occasion on which I remember a Vote being referred to.

1227. He also said at the Arms Trial that you had carried out the funding arrangement yourself; probably what he meant was the transfer of moneys from one to another, or something?

—I could not transfer without a cheque or an authority.

1228. These are matters we can take up with Mr. Fagan in any event. The cheque which was made out in favour of Wellux, your bank paid out cash on that?

—No. That cheque was lodged in our Grafton Street branch. It came around to us and eventually arrived when clearance of cheques was getting up-to-date again and we returned it unpaid.

1229. Did Grafton Street pay?

—Grafton Street would not be asked to pay. We are the only bank that could pay, it was drawn on us. Grafton Street lodged it to an account, it came to us and we did not pay it. It went back to Grafton Street then and I presume they debited whatever account it had originally been lodged to, or maybe cash was paid for it. I do not know.

1230. The name Anne O’Brien is referred to in various documents but I understand that no female approached the bank to draw money so that we are net aware of the identity?

—No.

1231. Are you aware of the identity of any other person referred to either as Roger Murphy, White, Loughran or Dixon?

—None of those parties nor George Dixon nor Anne O’Brien, I know of no person.

1232. And you did not become aware of the possibility of the money being used for arms purchases until the matter was made public?

—That is correct.

1233. Deputy Collins.—I think you will agree that the sums of money passing through the main account and through the subsidiary accounts were rather large?

—That is correct but again because of the nature of the account I do not know if it would be particularly large for an operation such as would appear to have been intended. Possibly the largest amount may be £13,000.

1234. At any stage were you not a little uneasy about the methods of withdrawal or the operation of the accounts? At any stage did you not feel you would like to meet any of the people who were authorised?

—No. I would not think so because the account had been very well introduced to us practically at the instance of the Government, we understood, and anybody associated with it. For the nature of the thing, we would not make inquiries. We thought it would not be our business to do so.

1235. You were of the opinion that these accounts were being operated by the Government officially?

—Or somebody well known to the Government was put in charge of them.

1236. This was your impression?

—Yes.

1237. Did you feel that Mr. Fagan had introduced Captain Kelly or did you feel that Mr. Fagan was officially opening the accounts?

—I took it that Mr. Fagan, probably on the instructions of his Minister at the time, opened the account.

1238. On behalf of the Minister?

—Yes.

1239. You were aware that Mr. Fagan had said the Government did not want to be connected with the operation of the transactions?

—Yes.

1240. You did not consider that as being unusual?

—No, again, because of the nature of the account.

1241. I assume that you met, on a number of occasions, the person who turned out to be Captain Kelly?

—Yes, probably not until 1970 after Mr. Walsh had left our office when he went on promotion to Crumlin Cross as manager.

1242. You must have had a number of discussions with Captain Kelly?

—On occasions Captain Kelly rang me and told me he wanted particular amounts of money in English cash if possible and if I would have them ready. He would call to my office in due course.

1243. Did you ever discuss the operation of the accounts in a general manner or did you become friendly with him as any manager might?

—Not exactly. He did not operate any account.

1244. Would you expand on that?

—He did not operate any account at our branch. So far as I know, he had no account.

1245. But he certainly lodged money to the George Dixon account?

—Yes. I would imagine that the person operating an account would be the person in whose name the account was opened. If I cashed a cheque on your account, I would not be operating your account.

1246. But if you lodged money to my account?

—I would not be operating your account.

1247. Did you ever think it peculiar that the persons, White, Loughran and Murphy never appeared and that you never met them?

—To be quite candid, I did not. I was always under the impression that they were people in the North of Ireland. I would not say always but I came to suspect that they were people in the North of Ireland.

1248. I quote from a Garda report as follows:

On the 18th September, 1970 I interviewed Mr. B. Deacon, Manager of the Munster and Leinster Bank, 2 Lower Baggot Street. He was unable to assist me in any way and said he had no dealings with the various accounts referred to herein.

Would you expand on that?

—I certainly had dealings. I was aware of the accounts. I may not have been able to give him any material assistance that got him anywhere.

1249. Possibly that is a misquotation?

—I would imagine so because I think that at all stages I had put my cards on the table.

1250. When did you become aware that it was possible that some of the money in the account was being used for the purchase of arms?

—When the thing became public. I probably got it from the radio or television or the newspapers.

1251. That would have been in May of 1970?

—Yes.

1252. Earlier?

—No.

1253. Did you take any steps at that stage to inform anyone in the Department or the Garda authorities that it was possible that money from the account might have been used for the purchase of arms?

—No. It was not my business to know what the money was used for.

1254. Except in so far as it came from State funds?

—I did not know until I saw it in the newspapers or heard of it by way of public announcement.

1255. Were you aware of the special Vote that had been passed in March concerning the moneys?

—I do not think so.

1256. I have here a cheque—£600—on the George Dixon account. The number is 925394. In relation to the date I notice that the money is not put in. Is that not very unusual? Would it not be proper in such a case to refer the cheque back to the drawer to have the date inserted?

—I would not think so.

1257. You consider that it would have been all right?

—Yes. I would imagine that that cheque was cashed by myself—that it was brought to me.

1258. Would you not have initiative or something?

—No but I notice that the cheque is actually endorsed.

1259. Is that J. J. Kelly Captain Kelly?

—I would think so.

1260. You have no recollection of that?

—Not in connection with that particular cheque.

1261. Did you, at any stage, contact the Red Cross with regard to the operation of these accounts or consider that it was necessary to do so?

—No.

1262. Two statements were sent out in January and March and you have stated that you were not aware of who took them?

—I think I would be correct in saying that they were not posted out. Obviously somebody called for them.

1263. In view of the instructions on the top of the ledger: “Do not send out statements. No correspondence to be sent out. All inquiries to A. J. Fagan”—this is the main account?

—Yes.

1264. On the subsidiary account you have: “Care, no correspondence” and “No correspondence whatsoever. All inquiries to A. J. Fagan.” In view of those instructions would it not have been proper to have telephoned Mr. Fagan before giving out the statement?

—I think that “Do not send out statement” means do not post statement. I think that that would mean do not post statement.

1265. Would you not infer from the instructions that the only person who should have got a statement would have been A. J. Fagan?

—I would, yes.

1266. And did you not feel that since A. J. Fagan did not arrive personally apparently to take the statement some written instruction should have been with the request for a statement or that whoever gave out the statement should have had something signed?

—I should imagine that whoever gave out the statement should have referred it to somebody but obviously they did not look —on the other accounts there is no mention of sending out a statement and there is no reason why even any official would not have handed out a statement if it was asked for. I do think “Do not send out” as I said, means do not post out statement.

1267. You do not recollect any employee coming to you and saying that: “Someone wants a statement of the Relief Account”?

—Oh no. They would not come to me in the ordinary way.

1268. Even for the statement?

—Oh no.

1269. You do accept that it was an exceptional account, that it was not a straightforward account, and that the instructions were very specific in the matter?

—That is correct.

1270. Is it not usual at the end of the year to send out statements?

—It is. It is usual at the end of the half year to send out statements but the date on which they would be sent out would depend an awful lot on the size of the branch and on how up to date things were.

1271. This account, did you not feel at any time in the New Year, at the beginning of 1970, that you should have a chat with Mr. Fagan or with somebody about the account, about what was going to happen in 1970 or anything like that?

—No, because in the ordinary course they were credit accounts. We have enough trouble with overdrawn ones without worrying about credit ones.

1272. But of course it did go into an overdraft position in February, did it not?

—It did, for a matter of eight days.

1273. You rang Mr. Fagan then?

—Yes.

1247. Did you discuss with him the subsidiary accounts in general, the Ann O’Brien account and the George Dixon account?

—Well it was actually the George Dixon account was overdrawn. The other one was not.

1275. Did you mention the name Ann O’Brien to him?

—I do not know, the Ann O’Brien account, I do not think, was ever overdrawn.

1276. Just in passing, while you might have rung him about the George Dixon account, did you not have a general discussion with him about the——

——Well there was no reason why I should have mentioned the Ann O’Brien account. It was always credit, but I do feel I certainly would have mentioned the George Dixon account which, as I said, at one stage was overdrawn £10,200.

1277. Yes. In your opinion Mr. Fagan would have known about the Ann O’Brien account in the ordinary course?

—I thought so.

1278. The word “Cork” appeared on the main account under “particulars” on February 13th. Are you satisfied this meant cash.

—I would imagine it is cash, it should be cash. There is a possibility it was cashed in Cork but I would imagine it should be cash.

1279. The possibility it would have been cashed——

—In Cork.

1280. Would you have any record of this?

—No.

1281. Surely if it was cashed in Cork there would have been some documentary——

—Well the cheque, the brand on the cheque is the only way you would know.

1282. It could have been just a mistake?

—It looks like a mistake, that it should be “cash”.

1283. The insertion of the words “White, Loughran and Murphy” on a number of lodgments, this was done by someone in your office? Is that right?

—That is correct.

1284. Does that apply also to the deposit which was received from America, the £1,990-odd?

—I think that deposit was sent in by Mr. Fagan by letter.

1285. Yes, well were the words “White, Loughran and Murphy” written on the lodgment slip or were they inserted in the bank?

—I would imagine probably “Belfast Fund for Relief of Distress” would have been mentioned. I think we have the letter.

1286. Could we see it please? He does not mention the words “White”, “Loughran” or “Murphy”?

—No.

1287. So do you feel those words were added in the bank, were inserted by an employee?

—On the actual lodgment? Oh definitely, yes.

1288. And why was it not put in on the counterfoil which you sent back to Mr. Fagan?

—There is a small note on the top of that: “Receipts should be made out to Irish Institute Incorporated, New York.”

1289. And was it posted to them?

—No. I would imagine it was sent to Mr. Fagan and I would imagine that the receipt indicated “Belfast Fund per Irish Institute”.

1290. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Page 28.

1291. Deputy E. Collins.—Yet on the counterfoil which was sent back to Mr. Fagan apparently it is headed: “The Committee of the Belfast Fund for Relief of Distress.”?

—Yes.

1292. Why were not the words “White, Loughran and Murphy” also inserted on the counterfoil?

—I do not think it would have been necessary.

1293. As it turns out it would have been very important. You said Captain Kelly asked you for the English money on a number of occasions.

—Well certainly on three occasions, I should imagine.

1294. For large sums in English money?

—Possibly up to £8,000 or so.

1295. It was mentioned, I think, at the Trial that he withdrew £12,000 in English money—from the George Dixon account? Could it have been that sum?

—It could, yes.

1296. You had no trouble meeting this request?

—Well, I had been advised previously by him that he was calling on such a day for this money, would I have it in English for him.

1297. He did not give you any idea how he intended to use this money?

—No.

1298. Deputy FitzGerald.—Mr. Deacon, how long have you known Mr. Fagan.

—Well I joined Baggot Street in June, 1968 and within a month or so of that time I would have met Mr. Fagan.

1299. Yes, and you have known him simply as a bank manager and a client or have you known him—

—I know him as a bank manager and a client and I know him as a bank manager and as an official of the Department of Finance.

1300. Can you tell us when your first contact with Mr. Fagan occurred in connection with this account? Might I just put it to you there seem to have been four occasions on which the account was overdrawn, the dates ranging from the 5th February onwards to 25th March. Is it your recollection that your first contact with him or indeed that your only contact with him about this account arose out of the account being overdrawn or were you in touch with him before that for any reason?

—No, I would imagine that possibly just because the account was overdrawn and the first occasion then would probably have been about——

1301. 5th February?

—Yes.

1302. On 5th February it was the main account that was overdrawn, from the 5th to the 9th? I think I am right in saying that?

—That is correct, yes.

1303. But on the three other occasions the problems arose out of the subsidiary account being overdrawn?

—On two occasions.

1304. Yes. On the 12th February again it was the George Dixon account?

—Yes.

1305. And on the 4th March?

—That is correct.

1306. Momentarily?

—Yes.

1307. And then owing to changes in the amounts in the main account the overall position became overdrawn again on the 13th March. On the 4th March it was overdrawn and then on the 5th there was a lodgment I think of £4,000 into the main account that put it right?

—Yes.

1308. But subsequently on the 13th money was taken out of the main account and put into the George Dixon account——

——Yes.

1309. From which further money was simultaneously withdrawn and, as a result of that, the accounts, in the plural, went into overdraft again for a period of 12, 13 days?

—No, on the 13th March there was no balance in the George Dixon account and the other account was credit £42.

1310. Yes, and from that to the 25th there was an overdraft again? The George Dixon account was in overdraft and there was no balance to meet that in the main account?

—No, on the 25th March, I think, the George Dixon account had no balance.

1311. Yes, between the 13th and the 25th it was overdrawn to the tune of £4,000 and in that period there was only £43 in the main account?

—No, I would not think so.

1312. Am I wrong in that?

—I think you are incorrect there.

1313. Will you put me right? I found it hard to sort these out.

—Yes. From the 4th March to the 13th March the George Dixon account was overdrawn.

1314. And then it was not overdrawn after that?

—No.

1315. I see. So that it was really only between the 4th and 5th that the overall account was overdrawn?

—Yes.

1316. There were, therefore, three occasions on which the accounts were overdrawn and on two of these it arose out of the George Dixon account?

—Yes.

1317. Your recollection is that on these occasions you got on to Mr. Fagan?

—Yes. If I did not myself I asked somebody to get on.

1318. But you do recall some conversations?

—Definitely, yes.

1319. You did say earlier you had three or four conversations?

—That is correct. On one occasion it was overdrawn for eight days, £10,200, and I could imagine that that would result in even three calls.

1320. Oh! Now, the George Dixon account was on 12th February but on 13th February £12,000 was lodged to the main account so that the overall position was restored immediately?

—Well, I could not regard money in the main account as George Dixon’s property.

1321. Oh! So you did not regard the George Dixon account as a subsidiary account?

—Well I did not regard the moneys in the main account as George Dixon’s property until he got a cheque from the main account to him.

1322. I see. So that when you were on to Mr. Fagan you were not merely telling him that the overall position was overdrawn and should be restored, you were specifically asking him to put money into the George Dixon account?

—Well, I was ringing him up in connection with an account that was overdrawn and I could well imagine that I told him it was the George Dixon account.

1323. If you did not tell him it was the George Dixon account how would he know what account to put money into to put it right for you?

—But he never put money into any account but the main account.

1324. Yes, but you missed my point here. I had taken it, wrongly I now see, that you were treating the three accounts together——

—No.

1325. ——and if the three together were in balance that you were happy. It now transpires, and I can quite see why and you are obviously perfectly correct, that the George Dixon account was not a subsidiary account and you could not rely on it being funded from the other and that, therefore, if it, in its own right, were in overdraft you were concerned about it. You think you may have had as many as three conversations with Mr. Fagan between the 12th and 20th February about the George Dixon account and what you were concerned with was that he should put it right, have it put right?

—I mentioned three occasions. There might be one occasion now when that account was again overdrawn in March.

1326. You mentioned altogether three or four occasions in earlier evidence. I put it to you that only on two occasions had the account been in overdraft and related this to your statement that you had three or four conversations and you said, I think: “I might have had as many as three conversations when the account was overdrawn for 12 days”?

—That is right.

1327. But these conversations, which you think were in the plural, related specifically to the George Dixon account. You were not just saying to him: “Could you put the main account in funds so that it all balances out?”, you were talking to him about a specific account which you needed to be put in funds?

—I may have got in touch with him in connection with the White, Loughran and Murphy account which was overdrawn from the 5th to the 9th February by almost £2,000.

1328. I appreciate that. That is another possible occasion and on that occasion the subsidiary accounts were not at issue and may never have been mentioned. There was no call to mention them?

—That is correct.

1329. Whatever conversation you had then you had a conversation or even perhaps as many as three conversations, you are not clear, about the George Dixon account between 12th and 20th and you were asking him to put that account in funds?

—Yes, I would have advised him that the account was overdrawn in my books and I wanted it put in order.

1330. Now, when you rang him up could you describe in any way the conversation? You are talking to an official of the Department of Finance who, on his account, is quite unaware that there is any other account at all. He gets a phone call from the relevant bank manager who says to him that an account he never heard of is overdrawn by £10,200 and would he put it right. Now, there are many questions a man might ask in those circumstances but if he were going to put it right one question would be: “What is the account?” How could you expect him to put money into the account if he were never told what it was? I am wondering could you retrace the conversation at all that took place?

—I am afraid it is so long ago that I could not.

1331. But there were specifically a number of conversations with him about a subsidiary account and he satisfied you that he was going to put this account in funds but you do not recall whether he asked you what the account was?

—I do not, no. I could not recall what the account was.

1332. But if he did not ask you what it was the fact that he indicated his willingness to put it in funds would suggest to you that he knew what the account was?

—I was always aware that the money came to the main account which is White, Loughran and Murphy. Any lodgments from the Department always went to that account and I could well imagine that any lodgment he would make or that would be made at his instigation would go to the White, Loughran and Murphy account.

1333. You do not recall that he expressed any surprise about this other account?

—I think he knew that I was a bit perturbed.

1334. But I mean on his account he was not aware there was such an account at all, and you ring him up and tell him that this account which on his version he had never heard of is overdrawn. If that had happened one would have thought that in the subsequent conversation he would have expressed some surprise, what is this account that is overdrawn and that, if that had happened, you would remember this as rather unusual, but you do not recall anything of that kind?

—No. I do not think there was any surprise. It was understood it would be pending receipt of further money.

1335. I see. You say that on some occasion the need to have a Vote in the Dáil was mentioned: can you recall on which occasion?

—I am afraid I could not, but I would imagine it was about the time that £12,000 was lodged.

1336. This is the £12,000 that was lodged——?

—On 13th February. I would imagine that would be the occasion.

1337. Your impression was that when you rang him on the 12th, because it only became overdrawn on the 12th, he said there was some kind of problem about settling this because money might have to be voted?

—I think he suggested that it would be looked after and it was not looked after in a couple of days so I rang again—this is what I would imagine—so I rang a second time and, on the second occasion, he said it was not just that easy to get money. They had to wait until the Vote was passed.

1338. You are aware that that was not, in fact, the case. All this money was paid out of a suspense account and the Vote was not passed on 18th March. There was no inhibition on further moneys being lodged?

—I am aware of that now. I was not aware when the Vote was passed—No, I did not know.

1339. There is the difficulty that, on the face of it, it seems a little improper or one is puzzled by an official of the Department of Finance saying that, in relation to a situation in which he did not need to have a vote passed in order to get the money?

—Could it relate to the time when the second account was overdrawn £3,800 on 4th March—the 4th March, the George Dixon account.

1340. It could not, I think, because subsequent lodgments of £16,000 were made out of the £100,000 so settling up in that did not require an increase in the amount of £100,000. However, it is a little puzzling. There is one point of correction I should like to ask you about. I think there may be a mistake through misreading and I should like to have help to guide me on this. You are more used to bank statements than we are. Have you got the statement?

—I have the actual ledger sheet.

1341. That is better still. I think it is the George Dixon account—yes. I should like to direct your attention to the transactions of 13th and 25th March. In the report given to us by the Department of Finance and printed in the pink book there is a version of the George Dixon account and it shows a lodgment of £4,000 by J. J. Kelly on 25th March—in the printed version?

—I think the £4,000 is on the 13th March.

1342. This is my clear impression also. I wanted you to confirm that. That lodgment was made on 13th March?

—Yes.

1343. We can correct that in the pink book then?

—Yes.

1344. You will have heard, when you were here earlier, us raising the question of the cheque and mandate being sent out to someone?

—Yes.

1345. Have you thought proper to make inquiries as to who might have sent that out because we will want the name of that person?

—I am afraid that nobody can remember as to how it actually happened.

1346. I see. You have questioned all the relevant people who might have sent it out?

—Yes.

1347. I did not quite understand what was said earlier about the documentation connected with the initial £7,500 that was lodged into the account by the Irish Red Cross. Would I be right in understanding that the relevant document was sent back to the Irish Red Cross?

—That is correct, yes.

1348. That is my understanding of the position?

—This is the lodgment account?

1349. No. The lodgment that opened the Baggot Street account—£7,500?

—That lodgment, I think, would have gone back with the paid cheques when the statement was handed out.

1350. You have all the other lodgment documents that were not sent out?

—They were not sent out, yes.

1351. Why?

—I understand that particular docket is in the nature of a bank giro transaction and, as such, the actual lodgment—the actual voucher indicating the lodgment that goes into our book goes out with the paid cheques. It is the normal custom.

1352. Deputy MacSharry.—The same as Standing Orders?

—Yes.

1353. Deputy FitzGerald.—The customers own lodgment would not go out?

—No.

1354. What record would the lodger have of that particular transaction?

—He would have a duplicate in his own office.

1355. So it would be the Irish Red Cross?

—That is correct, yes.

1356. Could you say why the three RD cheques were returned? When the banks reopened you had already given statements to the police; you knew about this account which was suspected to be used for arms transactions?

—Yes.

1357. When these cheques came up did it not occur to you to notify the police or to make copies of them?

—You must remember the banks were closed through all this time.

1358. When they reopened and you were dealing with cheques to Seamus Brady, did it occur to you to copy these or to notify the police?

—No.

1359. You did not get a request from the police to watch any further cheques that came in?

—I got a request eventually from the Department of Finance.

1360. The two had gone back at that stage?

—That particular cheque for £8,500, when that cheque came to us we have to return it.

1361. Given all the police inquiries and all that had happened, and the suspicions about this account, would it not have struck you as wise at least to photostat the cheque or notify the police before returning it as it could be vital evidence in an ultimate prosecution?

—It did not actually. This was prior to my having been told to retain all documents.

1362. I appreciate that. The Department of Finance request came after that?

—Yes.

1363. You did not reclaim the £300 cheque?

—I was able to get that cheque from Crumlin because it was payable to cash and they have no account. It was debited to them, so they would be holding that cheque and so I was able to get it back.

1364. With regard to the sending out or handing out of the statement, could I be clear as to who was entitled to get a copy of the statement? Is it the people in whose names the account is?

—It is very hard to state in a case like that. For instance, if you have a firm of auditors they might send one of 15 people to collect their statement.

1365. I appreciate that. It is not simply the people actually named. It is they or their accredited agents acting on their behalf?

—Yes.

1366. In view of the fact that these were three fictitious names they could not have an accredited agent—or could they have an accredited agent? Who was not considered entitled to get this account? What documentation would be required? You never met these people?

—I never met them.

1367. You could not have?

—No.

1368. What organisation would be entitled to get the bank statement?

—I might say I feel the statement should not have been handed out, but it is one of those things that happens.

1369. The only person, I suppose, you could justify handing it to was possibly Mr. Fagan in view of the note on the account?

—Yes, or possibly Mr. Kelly—I do not know.

1370. You told us a short time ago that Mr. Kelly did not operate this account?

—No.

1371. So you could not give it to a man who did not operate it?

—No.

1372. If I come in and cash cheques I am not entitled to the statement?

—You could say he was entitled on the number of transactions, but he certainly did not operate it.

1373. So, if he were given it, it would be improper?

—It would, yes.

1374. Have you made inquiries about what happened on these occasions?

—We have made inquiries in our branch and we cannot find anyone who handed that out, and it is quite understandable it is such a long time ago.

1375. Anyone’s defective recollection after a year is quite understandable, but you are in very unusual circumstances here where somebody who is not one of the people whose account it is and who cannot be an accredited agent of theirs, so far as we know, comes and on dates when in one case at least no other transactions took place—there was not someone coming and lodging or collecting money—on one of those days—the 13th March—someone comes in and asks for this account? In what kind of circumstances would that account be given out? I am wondering frankly whether anybody recognising that it would have been unwise or improper to give it to Captain Kelly—one sees this might have happened humanly as he seemed to be the person dealing with the account all the time—is it at all likely that anybody else could have marched into the bank for the first time, announced themselves, collected the statement and marched off?

—I would not think so. Officials that would be on the counter are usually officials of some years’ service anyway. They are not completely juniors. Some official of some responsibility would, I feel, have been asked.

1376. You do not think further inquiries would reveal any more? You are sure everybody concerned has been asked?

—I am.

1377. When you made your statement to the police did you tell them about the statement being handed out to somebody?

—I probably did not know at that stage. We had not keys. We did not know what was where.

1378. I had forgotten about the strike.

—We could get into the office but the various parts of the office were locked.

1379. In relation to one of the lodgments from the Irish Red Cross Society which was not, in fact, directed to this account, evidence has been given that yourself or Mr. Walsh asked Mr. Morrissey to check with the Bank of Ireland which account it was to go into.

—That is correct.

1380. There are a number of these. I can trace five or six cases. In each case would such a check have been made?

—A check would have been made certainly for probably four or five cases—possibly four or five cases—and may not have been made in the latter case.

1381. Was it somewhat unusual procedure for the lodgments to come in addressed to you and no indication as to what account to put them in?

—Yes. I am looking at one of 21st November, 1969 and the name on the account is Irish Red Cross. I think that is probably the one where I told—we assumed it was for this account. I gave definite instructions that we were not to put it into that account until we ascertained that it is for that account.

1382. Is it not surprising when that happened once and you made inquiries that they kept on with these peculiar cheques made out to you and not to the account?

—The 1st December—the account is made out completely differently. It is made out to the Belfast Aid Account.

1383. So is 31st December?

—Yes.

1384. Then they reverted to the other practice during January, February and March, although in April once again——

—Yes.

1385. You have a number of them—6th February, 5th March, 12th February, 25th March—all of those are made out to the bank.

—The 25th March is made out in our office. It was made out in our office.

1386. You put the writing on it?

—We put the writing on it.

1387. It was seen by you. Sorry, it was made out in your office. When you got it it was made out to the bank?

—No, that lodgment, I imagine, would have been phoned to us from Dame Street when they lodged £7,000 for the So-and-So account. We debit Dame Street and they credit us and no other document would be available then.

1388. There were three lodgments—6th February, 5th March and 12th February— which were made out to “yourselves”.

—Yes. “Yourselves.” 6th February.

1389. That is a vague way to pass money around. When you raised it the first time would you not have expected some more precise terminology would have been employed in the future?

—It was occasionally but not consistently.

1390. Were you surprised when they kept on doing this?

—No.

1391. In each case was it Mr. Morrissey who checked with the Bank of Ireland?

—I would think so. On the first occasion when I saw it it was certainly Mr. Morrissey.

1392. We can ask him if the three false names were mentioned. You have been already asked about a cheque of 17th April, although in fact the date was missing. There were two cheques on that date, both in the O’Brien and Dixon account and both with the date missing? Do I understand you to say you handled these yourself and that this is your initial or endorsement?

—The fact that it is endorsed by anybody —I think I might have handled it myself even though it was payable to cash. It is not customary—anybody who has a cheque payable to cash need not endorse it.

1393. The absence of a date you would not regard——

—We could fill it in ourselves. We were perfectly in order to fill in the date ourselves.

1394. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Mr. Deacon, there is one point I would like to clear up. When Mr. Walsh explained to you about the new account did he emphasise to you that Captain Kelly opened a new subsidiary account?

—No.

1395. You cannot recall his name being mentioned on that occasion?

—No.

1396. I take it that when the statement was given back, that the person to whom it was given back must have been known to the person who was giving it back?

—I would imagine that it was somebody associated in some way with these accounts.

1397. To your knowledge do you know of anybody else who dealt with those accounts and the transferring of money from one to the other?

—Not in the transferring of money.

1398. From the triple account to the Dixon or Anne O’Brien account?

—No.

1399. I think Mr. Walsh stated that you would probably have all the correspondence dealing with this matter and I mention the covering note which Mr. Fagan referred to on the 10th November when he addressed the letter to Miss Murphy. He said the cheque should be made payable to the bank and the covering note addressed to Mr. William Walsh, Deputy Manager.

—I do not think I have that letter. What is the date?

1400. It is dated 10th November, 1969.

—I have not that.

1404. To go back to the lodgment accounts of the Red Cross—there is one item here some place which is dated 6th February, 1970—Irish Red Cross. It is payable to “yourselves” and letter of the 4th instant refers. I wonder is there any copy of that letter around, or have you any recollection of what it refers to? The bankers’ payment of the 6th February?

—I see. I am looking at it. I do not think that refers to our office at all. I think that may be some instructions that the Irish Red Cross Society had.

1402. The other point of interest—there is this question of paying cash. When a cheque is handed in to you you authorise payment by comparing the name of the payee on the cheque, the name on the cheque authorising payment, with your name in your account?

—Well, we know, we generally know the signatures without looking up matters.

1403. Well now, if somebody presents you with a cheque; “pay cash” and it is completely open, does this not mean that the cheque might be found lost?

—Even if it is lost we must pay it.

1404. You must pay it?

—Yes, or refuse payment on somebody’s account when they have money possibly.

1405. Well, under those circumstances, is it not much more important that you either know the person or that they endorse the cheque for you?

—No, in that particular instance, if it is payable to cash no matter who brings it in, we must pay it, provided there is money there.

1406. Deputy Keating.—Mr. Deacon, I would like to start by, in fact, getting some help from you about things that are not clear to me. For example, I have something that is headed “Bankers Payment Form E 8th April, 1970.” It is one of a pile of photostats of transactions. It is typed “To the Bank of Ireland, College Green, from Munster and Leinster Bank, Lower Baggot Street.” Now, where would that have been made out—I mean, where is it made out? How does that piece of paper work in fact? Could I just have an explanation of it——

—That docket originated in the Bank of Ireland, College Green, Dublin and it is a duplicate exactly of another docket which is our payment. This being the duplicate is the lodgment to our account and the original of that goes back to the Bank of Ireland for our payment.

1407. That originated in the Bank of Ireland, is sent to you and is then sent back after you have put your date stamp, “Munster and Leinster Bank” and it goes back to them?

—And that is why it is addressed to the Bank of Ireland.

1408. Yes?

—Yes.

1409. Yes, OK. Now, if I turn to the pile of photostats I am looking at are in order of time with the oldest ones at the bottom. If I turn now to one—I cannot, in fact, read the date—it looks like 19th December, Bank Giro, Credit Transfer——

—Which account, Mr. Keating?

1410. Irish Red Cross Society—paid in by the Irish Red Cross Society. It has Mr. Walsh’s initial on it. It is dated I think from the stamp, 19th December?

—Yes.

1411. It says “Belfast Aid Account”. Now, do you know whose handwriting that is on that? Is it all Mr. Walsh’s?

—No, that writing is from the Bank of Ireland correspondence office.

1412. I see. Underneath, in the square marked “account”, underneath this, somebody has written in: “Account White, Loughran, Murphy.”?

—That’s right.

1413. Who would have written that?

—An official in our office.

1414. In your office. Can you tell who it was from the writing?

—I think it was Mr. Ryan.

1415. I see. I notice that if you look at the middle of those three names it is “Loughlan”. Would that be your reading of it?

—Yes.

1416. Loughlan, not Loughran?

—Yes.

1417. I see. If we turn then, the next one in my sequence, 1st December, 1969, this time it is an advice with a signature of someone in the Bank of Ireland on it?

—Yes.

1418. “Name of account, Belfast Aid Account.” Written underneath that, someone has written in “White and Loughlan”, simply?

—Pardon me. What date is this one?

1419. 1st December, 1969. I have a number stamped together, in fact. You have that one?

—Yes.

1420. Now, “White and Loughlan” is written in?

—Yes.

1421. Do you know whose handwriting that is? Would that have been in your office? Underneath “Belfast Aid Account”.

—I see. May I ask my officials? I could not recognise it.

1422. Yes?

—This one I understand is Mr. Ryan’s and the previous one was Mr. Moore’s.

1423. I see. This time the spelling is “Laughlin”, yet another variant?

—Well I would imagine that would be an “o”.

1424. I see. Well, it is “-lin” rather than “-ran”?

—Yes, well, that is understandable.

1425. Yes, I see. A further one dated 31st December, 1969 from the Bank of Ireland again, signature I cannot read, agent for the Bank of Ireland. Someone has written in the account in your branch, I take it. It says “Belfast Aid Account”?

—Yes.

1426. This time the Loughran is as on the original document setting up the account but it is “Whyte”?

—That is right.

1427. Another variant again?

—Yes.

1428. I see.

—That was also written by an official in our office.

1429. Yes. Where would these officials have seen the title of that account written down?

—Pardon me?

1430. Where would they have seen— would they have seen it written down in the file?—Where would they have seen it? I mean, are mistakes in spelling of this sort common?

—Oh, definitely. They know—only one girl deals with the ledger now in which White, Loughran and Murphy would be and these things could come to any of the girls there and they would say: “Oh, I know. That is White, Loughran and Murphy,” But they would not know the spelling.

1431. The point that I am making is that one would expect—there are two spellings of White and four spellings of Loughran, on my reading of it, in this pile of things. This suggests to me—this is simply reacting as I would myself—I am inclined to make mistakes if I have heard a thing by word of mouth; if I have seen it written down I am inclined to get it right——

—Quite possibly.

1432. Would that indicate if other people are comparable, that in fact the people writing in these things in your branch had heard the name of the account but had not see it written?

—That is correct, yes.

1433. I see. There is no point—it goes on like this. I mean there are various spellings but now I would like to turn to one dated 6th February, bankers payment Form E of 6th February, from the Bank of Ireland, specifically for your attention?

—Yes.

1434. Have you got it with you? You have the original there, have you?

—Yes.

1435. The name of account—it says, yourselves?

—Yes.

1436. Underneath that, it is White, Loughran—I do not know; we will not worry about the spelling of the Loughran and Murphy. Underneath that again something is crossed out. And I cannot decipher on my photostat copy what that is. Is there any possibility of reading it on the original that you have? This is a cheque for £3,000 on 6th February.

—I think it is the Christian name of the various parties, White, Loughran and Murphy. Perhaps you would like to see the original?

1437. Yes.

(Document produced.)

—I think it is the Christian names of the various parties.

Deputy R. Burke.—It is “Belfast” or something.

1438. Deputy Keating.—It is something … 6th January … I will move on to other things, Mr. Deacon, we will leave my colleagues to try to decipher it. You told us that your contact with and knowledge of Mr. Fagan was simply in the course of the business of your branch and of his having an account there and that you also knew him as a senior public servant in the Department of Finance?

—Yes, and socially.

1439. Yes, you knew him, socially.

—Yes.

1440. That is subsequent to your first meeting him?

—Yes.

1441. This would be after some time in 1968?

—Yes.

1442. I am told it says “Belfast Relief Fund”?

—Possibly, yes.

1443. Thank you very much. I might pass that back to you. Does your branch do a fair amount of business for Government Departments? You are fairly close to them?

—Yes.

1444. So that you have contact with the Departments of Agriculture, Finance and various Departments all the time?

—Yes.

1445. And you are, therefore, fairly experienced in doing the business of the Public Service, in fact?

—Yes.

1446-1457. A portion of a report which has been made available to the Committee was read to you earlier. I was not sure when it was being done that you were quite clear about where it came from and I wanted to refer to it again. There has been made available to us a report from Chief Superintendent Fleming of various investigations that he made and this was being quoted from. You said today in the course of your evidence, that Captain Kelly “on occasions rang me up” and that you prepared money for him and certainly on three occasions large sums of English money possibly up to £8,000 and that you had various dealings with Captain Kelly about this account?

—That is correct.

1458. Now, the report which was prepared early in December of this investigation by Chief Superintendent Fleming—in the paragraph which has already been read out he says, “On 18th of September, 1970. I interviewed Mr. B. Deacon”—he has your initial wrong, but quite obviously——?

—I am known as Bertie.

1459. Then he says “He was unable to assist me in any way and said he had no dealings with the various accounts referred to herein.” Now he quotes you, Mr. Deacon, in a document that has been made available confidentially to this Committee as having stated that you had “no dealings with the various accounts referred to herein”. You have made it quite clear in your evidence today that you did have dealings with that account?

—Yes.

1460. It is therefore an inescapable inference that the version that the Superintendent gives of his discussions with you on 18th September differs from the version that you have given to the Committee?

—I wonder—on 18th September? At what date was the arms trial? Much earlier, of course?

1461. Not much earlier. The first trial was pending at any moment and the second trial was in October. It was not much earlier. I cannot remember the date of the opening of the first trial.

1462. Deputy FitzGerald.—23rd September, I think.

1463. Deputy Keating.—23rd September. Yes, it would have been in the days immediately prior to the arms trial when people were, in fact, waiting for it to open and knew it was in course of preparation?

—At this stage I had been with Superintendent Fleming and produced all this evidence, et cetera.

1464. I see. Again quoting Superintendent Fleming it says, “He declined”—this is in regard to yourself—“to make a written statement”?

—That is correct.

1465. Now, your colleague and the man who, in fact, had been your deputy in that job up to the previous Christmas Eve, Mr. Walsh, did make a written statement and you declined to do so?

—I did.

1466. Was that a matter of bank policy, or could I ask you why?

—I thought as manager of the bank I should not get involved in this, that I would prefer not to make a statement.

Chairman.—I think there is a general request all round for a coffee break for 20 minutes.

The Committee adjourned at 4.35 p.m. until 5 p.m.

Examination of Mr. Herbert Thomas Deacon continued.

1467. Deputy Keating.—Mr. Deacon, I have already referred to the two ways in which the name White was signed and to my reading four ways that Loughran was signed and O’Brien was signed in two ways. All this surely would have been noticed if there were any suspicions in the minds of the bank officials? You would have noticed if you had any suspicions that these were fictitious people, you would have noticed variations in spelling, some one of your staff, there would have been half a dozen members of staff and they all would have seen you cannot very well spell Murphy or Dixon incorrectly but all the things that could have been spelt in more than one way were in fact. Had there been any suspicion, is it—going from the experience that an ordinary member of the public has, our experience is that if somebody steps very little out of line with an extra initial, dropping an initial or something, it is instantly noticed and that we are approached. Now, it strikes us therefore as a little strange that no mention of any of these variations was made at any stage. Now, was that because you understood the special nature of the account or was it simply because these things were not noticed?

—I think quite a lot of the spellings of those names are done by our own staff who probably never saw the names in type and they did not know how—they knew it was White, Loughran and Murphy, they did not know exactly how it was spelt, whether White was a “y” or an “i”.

1468. Yes. And the O’Brien, you said that it made little difference in the signature earlier, but you know money was going out over the counter——

—Yes.

1469. In the name of someone that you had never seen, after all?

—That is correct.

1470. And you had no direct evidence of her existence at all? Now, I am left with the conclusion, that I would ask you to comment on, that either these things were noticed, in which case the decisions not to act on them was because of the extraordinary nature of the accounts which was appreciated, or else that there was a little bit of carelessness in not noticing them?

—Well, Deputy, I think in that case, now, the two Anne O’Brien cheques that I have, they are perfect, the signatures are perfect according to our records.

1471. Yes, in many cases this is so but in many other cases it is not so?

—Yes. What other cases for instance?

1472. Well, the original note, the 14/11/63—I do not know what this is taken from. It is along with the mandate. Now with the mandate there are one duplicate I think, for the Dixon account, one for the O’Brien account?

—That is a copy of the signature card as given to us.

1473. Yes, that is a copy of the signature as given to you. Cheques for example—a cheque in April the following year the spelling is in that way. In many of the intervening cheques it is the other way. You see the—and in fact on that there are two spellings of the name. There is the signature spelling and the spelling at the top— “ien” as against “ein”?

—Well, as I say——

1474. And some cheques, if you take all of them and look through them—I do not propose to take you through them now —but there are, you know, some cheques with “ien” on them quite clearly and some with “ein”?

—I think I could at least state there that that signature “O’Brien”—signatures are very often completely indecipherable.

1475. Yes, but they are uniformily indecipherable. There are people indeed whose signatures cannot be read but they always make the same sort of squiggle but the point here is that there are two different sorts of squiggles both of which can be read and they are different. However, we need not pursue that. You see what is happening is that we are getting a situation building up. Here are a number of irregularities which I think would have stopped any individual account from—would have raised inquiries on the account of any individual, any private individual. We have the situation that nobody can remember the sending out of the mandate or to whom it was sent. We have the situation that the cheque book for the original White, Loughran, Murphy account, we do not know whom it went to and nobody can recall. We have the situation that statements in January and in March for all three accounts simultaneously were given out to persons unknown and nobody can recall whom they went to and all of the five people whose names are associated with those three accounts were all unknown to the bank?

—Yes.

1476. Now this brings us inescapably—I know this may have started in a perfectly innocent way—either to a knowledge by your branch or indeed by yourself that this was a very special situation in which you had to co-operate, or else to a situation one could fairly describe as lax.

—I think, because of the nature of the accounts, there were a lot of questions we could not ask. We did not think it would be just the thing to do to ask questions about it. We saw the accounts, the manner in which they were introduced to us, et cetera.

1477. If the situation is that on a whole series of points, some of which I have enumerated and some of which are absolutely crucial—like where did the mandate go, where did the first cheque book go of the White, Loughran and Murphy account and also the simultaneous statements on all three accounts—the explanation is that with due consideration nobody in the branch can remember where they went, then we have to accept what we are told. We cannot at this stage pursue it further. I should like at this point, however, to urge you to consult your staff, the employees, again. You do understand they are all crucial points?

—I do. I believe there is nobody in my branch that can tell me at this stage where those went to. In addition, of course there were officials in the branch at one time who are not there still, but I still believe there is no official who could tell me.

1478. I want to turn then to one vital subject which involves the period in February when the Dixon account was overdrawn in the sum of £10,200. You have made it clear to us that you did not look on those three accounts as being in fact one and the same thing, even though the three statements were issued on the same day. You made it clear that you viewed this large overdraft in a serious light and that you made telephone calls to Mr. Fagan, it could be twice, it could be three times, about having money paid in to cover the overdraft?

—Yes.

1479. In recapitulating, you also made it clear that you looked on the Dixon account as distinct from the White, Murphy and Loughran account. Is there any way you could have had a telephone conversation about that overdraft in the Dixon account with Mr. Fagan without the fact coming to light that you were referring to an account and to the state of balance of that account of which he had no knowledge?

—I think it highly unlikely.

1480. Of course you will appreciate that a great deal revolves around this. Your statement is quite clear and unequivocal that you had at least one conversation in February with Mr. Fagan about at least one subsidiary account. Is that perfectly clear in your recollection?

—That is clear.

1481. One final subject I wish to raise is quite minor. It is about what one understands as operating an account. If somebody is instrumental in opening an account, is responsible for paying money into it and makes payments and draws money from it, when the supposed proprietor of the account, if one can use the phrase, has never been in the bank, has never been known to any member of the staff, is it not therefore legitimate to refer to the person who is instrumental in opening the account and who pays into it and draws from it, as operating the account?

—Not in banking. The only person who operates an account is the person in whose name the account is, or some other person designated by that person to operate the account.

1482. I used the phrase “proprietor of the account” which may not be a banking phrase, but the only person who can operate the account is in fact the proprietor?

—Yes, or somebody appointed by the proprietor.

1483. You had no evidence at any stage that Captain Kelly was the designated agent of whoever Anne O’Brien may have been?

—No.

1484. So it is in this sense that though transactions of all sorts were made by Captain Kelly you did not regard him as operating the account?

—Yes.

1485. Deputy Keating.—It is a question of semantics on which I wanted to be clear.

1486. Deputy MacSharry.—On the point of the relationship you had in your mind adopted with Captain Kelly, in whichever way you like to term it, in regard to the operation of the funds in and out of the bank into two or three different accounts, what sort of relationship had you with him, or what did you regard him as? Whom did he represent?

—I took him to represent somebody dealing with or authorised to deal with the distribution of funds in Northern Ireland.

1487. Did you understand him at all to be an intermediary between the Minister for Finance and yourself?

—I did think there must be some connection, seeing he was introduced to us by the Department.

1488. This is what is already stated by Mr. Fagan himself: that on one occasion when he was talking to you he mentioned the fact that Mr. Kelly, not using his Army rank, was on official duties when dealing with the bank and you answered, according to this statement, that you had come to this conclusion yourself. Do you recall that phone call?

—I do not, actually. Mr. Kelly was introduced to me by one of my own staff. Apparently he dealt with Mr. Walsh while Mr. Walsh was at the branch. When Mr. Walsh was transferred from the branch he dealt with me. Obviously, he did not know me on the first occasion and a member of my own staff called and told me that Mr. Kelly wanted to see me.

1489. I will bring you back a bit today when you said that when anyone presents a cheque “pay cash” at a bank, it must be paid if there are funds in the account to meet it.

—Yes.

1490. In the particular case which is being talked about mostly today, in relation to the withdrawal of £12,000 or £13,000 pay cash on the George Dixon account, there was only £2,800 to meet it?

—That is correct.

1491. Considering what you have said, that at a later date you became worried about this established overdraft of £10,200 for eight days, how did it happen that you gave it out in the first place? Had you authority to do this, did somebody tell you that you could pay it to a certain limit?

—No. I am the manager of the branch.

1492. When this account was opened was it just to be in credit all the time or was there a limit fixed on it, or accommodation provided in it?

—No accommodation was arranged.

1493. Is it not unusual that £10,200 would be paid cash across the counter?

—It is not.

1494. It is not?

—No.

1495. Well, I must get in on that. I cannot understand this myself. You say it is not unusual and I accept that. Your relationship with Mr. Fagan, according to copies of correspondence we have, seems to have been very cordial and you knew each other well?

—Certainly, I have great regard for Mr. Fagan.

1496. In your opinion, could it be possible that in the early stages of the working of this account, talking in the terms of the time approximately that Mr. Walsh was promoted, that Mr. Fagan or somebody in the Department of Finance would not be aware of the fictitious names being used in this account? In your opinion, is it possible they would not be aware?

—I think they must have been aware.

1497. In your opinion they should have been aware?

—Yes.

1498. You have nothing to back that up in any way?

—No, not in actual fact.

1499. Another point that needs to be clarified in so far as this Committee are concerned is the question of statements that have been made by particular people to say that they did not know of the fictitious names. Yet, in almost all the documentation in the bank the three names were mentioned and so far as you were concerned the business of those accounts were transacted and contact was made through Mr. Fagan?

—That is correct.

1500. Bearing in mind the fact that you had this cordial relationship, I could not see that you would keep the three fictitious names from him?

—No, I had no reason to keep the ficititious names from him. I did not know they were fictitious names.

1501. You feel quite positive that he, or somebody in the Department who would be dealing with this, should have known about the three names?

—I think they should have known about them; I do not see how they could not.

1502. A final point of clarification. I know you told me that it is not unusual that this account of George Dixon should immediately, by cash across the counter, go into debit of £10,200 and this gave you reason to ring Mr. Fagan to have it put right. I still think that some authority—I am not talking about the managerial authority in the bank—but the people who are running these accounts whoever they may be must have had some authority to walk into that bank with a cheque of £13,000, knowing at the same time that there was only £2,800 to meet it, and that you would hand them out £10,200 of your money, because it was the bank’s money you handed out.

—That is correct.

1503. It was only on your authority, nobody else gave you any permission?

—No.

1504. Deputy Nolan.—As an experienced bank official you could see there was a tie-up between the Dixon account and the main account—the Belfast Fund for Relief of Distress?

—Yes.

1505. Therefore, I would take it if you saw that the Belfast Fund was in credit you could feel fairly safe about the George Dixon account?

—Well, I would feel happier.

1506. Possibly if the Belfast Fund for Relief of Distress went into arrears, or if the overdraft was high, you knew from a public statement by the Minister for Finance at the time that there was £100,000 available through the Red Cross and you could ring the Department?

—I do not remember ever having known of £100,000 being made available, at that stage.

1507. At that stage? You knew Mr. Fagan very well?

—Yes.

1508. I presume at that time there was no real problem about this account—the bubble had not burst, so to speak. You could pick up the telephone and ring Mr. Fagan—you would probably call him Tony—and tell him that the account was overdrawn. Possibly, he would say “I’ll see the Minister and we will send you a cheque via the Red Cross.” There is a submission now made by Mr. Morrissey—probably known to you as an official and probably still in the Munster and Leinster Bank.

—Yes.

1509. He stated when the cheque for £12,000 was presented there were no funds to meet it in the George Dixon account and that he phoned the Department of Finance and asked to speak to Mr. Anthony J. Fagan. “I was informed that he was not available. I then spoke to a Miss Morrissey and, having explained discreetly to her that funds were required by the bank, no figures or names or accounts being mentioned, I was assured that the matter would be taken care of.” It could happen that on this particular occasion it was Mr. Morrissey who actually telephoned looking for Mr. Fagan.

—Quite possibly in the first instance. But then when the account continued to be overdrawn after a few days I thought it worthwhile to phone myself.

1510. Yes. It is possible when you phoned Mr. Fagan that you only referred to the Belfast Fund?

—I do not see why I should refer to the Belfast Fund. That account was in credit at the time.

1511. You still think you did mention to Mr. Fagan the George Dixon account?

—I would think I certainly left him under the impression that it was the George Dixon account.

1512. I see. You did mention that you did not know John White, John Loughran, Roger Murphy, Anne O’Brien or George Dixon?

—Yes.

1513. Mr. Moore, in a submission, stated he met two people who were dealing with the accounts. Apart from Captain Kelly, he met one other who shall be nameless at the moment. Did you, in any way, meet anyone else dealing with the accounts?

—In looking at the lodgments—I have no code of names, incidentally——

(Document handed to Witness).

1514. Chairman.—Does that meet your requirements? No? Then perhaps you would pass it up to me and we will let you have the code names.

(Document handed to Witness).

1515. Deputy Nolan.—I take it that apart from Captain Kelly you did meet somebody else who had something to do with the accounts?

—Yes. A lodgment to George Dixon’s account on 25th March was made out by me and signed by Mr. F. I take it I met Mr. F; I have no recollection whatever.

1516. That is the only other person you have met in connection with the accounts?

—Excuse me for a moment. I have another one.

—A lodgment made on the 6th January, 1970 was made by Mr. K.

1517. Mr.?

—Mr. K. I wrote out that document and apparently he signed it. I have no recollection whatever of having met him.

1518. Deputy Treacy.—You were good enough to refer to certain of the cheques here in the name of Anne O’Brien which you were able to track down. You say that you referred to three cheques which came to your notice since the reopening of the banks, namely, three various cheques, Anne O’Brien, c/o Anne O’Brien. Are there any further cheques, Mr. Deacon, that you have been able to trace in similar fashion?

—No. Those are the only ones we would have any record of. I have two of Anne O’Brien’s cheques and there are three which we returned.

1519. Yes. Have you been able to assess the amount of money outstanding from these cheques which are still untraceable?

—£10,000.

1520. £10,000?

—Yes, that is, one of £8,500, one of £300, and I think the other is one of £1,200.

1521. From the time that you became aware that the very many names involved were in fact fictitious you must have become concerned, if not alarmed. Could I ask you what steps did the bank take on its own initiative to try to ascertain who these fictitious people were, outside of any Garda investigation? Did you feel you had any responsibility in this matter as manager?

—We did not know there were any fictitious people involved until the Arms Trial came along. We did not know they were fictitious people.

1522. So you did not know until the bubble burst?

—That is correct.

1523. How many visits did the Garda make to you in connection with this matter, roughly?

—I should imagine about three.

1524. And you were not able to assist them any more than you have been able to assist us here today?

—Not in the slightest. I was somewhat surprised to see it stated that I gave no assistance.

1525. To what extent does your bank do business with State or semi-State bodies?

—A considerable extent.

1526. A considerable extent?

—Yes.

1527. Would you have regarded the accounts which were passed on to you, shall I say, primarily from Mr. Fagan, the Belfast Fund for Relief of Distress, amounting to some £63,000 and the other funds, accounts of George Dixon for, £4,000, approximately, and the Anne O’Brien account for a lesser amount say, £6,500, would you as manager have regarded that as really worthwhile business for your bank?

—Certainly.

1528. You say that you were not personally involved in the opening of these accounts, this joint account in any event, and that the man who was dealing with it in the initial stages was Mr. William C. Walsh?

—That is right.

1529. Did you perhaps charge Mr. Walsh with special responsibility for dealing with this very important and very delicate matter?

—No. They were quite normal. They were accounts in our books introduced most reliably and I did not feel any apprehension whatever about the accounts.

1530. Did not Mr. Walsh intimate to you the delicate nature of the account as per telephone conversation from Mr. Fagan?

—Well, I knew that account had been in connection with——

1531. You knew this was an account out of the ordinary, so to speak?

—Yes.

1532. I want to try to ascertain that Mr. Walsh may have had special responsibility over it until such time as he was transferred or promoted?

—No. He would have no responsibility except that he was the party through whom it was introduced.

1533. Could you indicate what officer in particular in your bank might have dealt with the matter?

—Well, I as manager. I as manager would be responsible for the account.

1534. As and from 1st January?

—As from the date I joined the branch.

Sorry. I was talking specifically about these accounts?

—Yes, as from the time they were opened.

1535. But you have said here: “Was not personally involved in the opening of the joint account in the branch in the names of John White, John Loughran and Roger Murphy or of the separate account opened in the names of George Dixon and Anne O’Brien.”?

—Yes.

1536. You are reluctant to concede that Mr. Walsh or any other person specifically was dealing with the matter prior to January 1st, prior to, say, the transfer of Mr. Walsh? You still maintain that you were in sole control of——

—If someone had to answer for something that happened in the account it is to me it would fall as manager of the branch.

1537. You made a rather categorical statement here, Mr. Deacon, and I would just like your confirmation of it. You state that you recollect having met Captain James Kelly at the branch on many occasions and having assisted him to procure cash for cheques drawn on the subsidiary accounts. Your words are:

The cheques were in all cases drawn strictly in accordance with the authorities and specimen signatures held.

—That is correct.

1538. That is a very categorical statement?

—Yes.

1539. Nevertheless all the evidence coming to this Committee is that the very many persons involved were all fictitious persons. There is no evidence of anybody ever witnessing a signature, specimen signatures of any kind. How then can you make this statement and be so certain that the cheques were so strictly in accordance with the authorities and the specimen signatures held? A layman, an outsider looking in, might get the impression that this was done in strict conformity with normal banking procedures, but we know from our evidence here, especially today that it was far altogether from that point of view. Could you tell us why you feel so sure that things were done “according to Cocker”, to so speak, when all the evidence here is to the contrary?

—Well, I have specimen signatures. My cheques correspond with them in all cases.

1540. We now know, in hindsight, that these specimens are not worth the paper they are printed on?

—I am still not aware that there is no Anne O’Brien or George Dixon. I just do not know.

1541. It is very interesting that you did not track them down.

1542. Deputy Tunney.—The questions that I shall ask shall probably save a little repetition but I am hoping they may provide more certain results than I seem to have had to date. You have stated that you were advised by Mr. Walsh, the deputy manager, of the opening of the accounts and of the manner in which they were being conducted from time to time. That is in your statement?

—I was not advised there was anything irregular.

1543. I am not suggesting you were. But Mr. Walsh having been the main instrument in the opening of the accounts in your non-availability, spoke with you as to how he saw the accounts were being operated?

—I do not know that Mr. Walsh would have noticed anything irregular about them.

1544. I am not saying there was anything irregular but you say that you were advised by Mr. Walsh of the opening of the accounts and the maner in which they were being conducted from time to time?

—He might mention to me that Mr. Kelly had been in today and drew £4,000 or £8,000 or whatever it might me. That was what I intended to convey.

1545. Would he have indicated to you how the accounts were opened initially.

—I would imagine so.

1546. And you would respect him as a man whose knowledge of banking would conform more or less with your own?

—Certainly.

1547. In circumstances where Mr. Walsh has said that:

As I saw it at the time, it required two signatures to draw on the main account —any two of the three. It may have been difficult or impractical to get two of these people together when funds were required, and the opening of the individual accounts were merely extensions of the main account, in that any moneys coming into the individual accounts had to come from the main account and be properly withdrawn from the main account by the proper signatories.

He would presumably have indicated that to you?

—Yes.

1548. Mr. Walsh said also as is reported at page 85 of the Minutes of Evidence:

… It struck me as being a reasonable precaution to put this on paper, particularly when we did not know any of the three signatories. It would seem to me to be reasonable to send any statement or correspondence back to the person who caused the account to be opened.

He was then asked:

Which was Mr. Fagan?

And he replied:

Yes.

So you would have taken it from him that correspondence should be sent back to Mr. Fagan?

—Yes.

1549. So far as the overdraft in respect of the George Dixon account is concerned and since where Mr. Walsh would have told you about the operation of the accounts—that moneys coming in to individual accounts had to come from the main account——

—Yes.

1550. In those circumstances do you think it would have been necessary for you when speaking to Mr. Fagan, to refer to the George Dixon account specifically?

—Not while it was in funds.

1551. But even when it was out of funds?

—Definitely and I did contact Mr. Fagan when it was not in funds.

1552. But knowing that it was only an extension of the main account out of which it could only be funded, according to Mr. Walsh?

—I do not know what is implied by “an extension of the main account”. As I see it, Captain Kelly as we now know required a certain amount of money and had a cheque payable to cash for, say, £12,000 that he had to disburse to maybe three or four people. He, rather than carry cash on him, I presume, thought it better to put it in some other account, such as that of George Dixon, out of his control, and that the money would be lodged in George Dixon’s account and could be disbursed as required.

1553. But you did not take it that they were both ensuing from the main account?

—I certainly knew they were connected but in relation to my statement about the balances, I could never regard a credit balance in an account of three names as being available to clear an overdraft in any particular name.

1554. Again, I refer to the statement made by Mr. Morrissey when he said:

£12,000 drawn on the account of George Dixon in favour of cash was referred to me as there was insufficient funds in that particular account to meet it. Neither was there funds in the names of John White, John Loughran and Roger Murphy to meet it. Neither were there funds there adequate to cover it.

That would suggest to me that in circumstances where there were funds in the main account, Mr. Morrissey would have been happy?

—I do not know if he would have been happy but he certainly would have been happier.

1555. He says also that since the cheque had to be dealt with immediately a certain amount of anxiety arose and that in the circumstances he telephoned the Department of Finance and asked to speak with Mr. Fagan. Mr. Fagan was not available but he says that he explained discreetly that funds were required in the bank and that no figures or names of accounts were mentioned?

—Yes.

1556. Why would Mr. Morrissey have exercised such caution in speaking on the phone?

—I would imagine he had never met this person in the Department before and probably did not know how much that person knew about these accounts. The only people in the Department who we knew knew of the accounts were possibly Mr. Haughey and Mr. Fagan.

1557. So it was not the nature of the business that in all telephone conversations a certain caution was implied by everybody in the matter of mentioning names?

—Certainly, certain caution was taken by everybody so far as we were concerned.

1558. Notwithstanding that you think you might have referred specifically to the George Dixon rather than to the main Belfast account?

—I think I would. I do not see how I could have phoned anybody about an overdraft without stating what the account was particularly as I thought this person knew of both accounts at the time.

1559. Mr. Kelly had become known to you as the man—we will avoid the word “operating”—who was involved very much in these accounts?

—Yes.

1560. You had accepted him as, perhaps, an official representative of the Government?

—That is correct.

1561. In circumstances where an amount had been overdrawn, it did not strike you as possible that Mr. Kelly himself could have brought that message back to the Department?

—It is quite possible that he did on occasions.

1562. But on this particular occasion?

—I could imagine that he probably did.

1563. Can you recollect if it was suggested to him that he might tell Mr. Fagan or Mr. Haughey?

—I understood that Mr. Fagan and he were absolutely au fait with the accounts.

1564. But would it not have been possible to ask Captain Kelly to tell Mr. Fagan?

—I feel that that probably was done.

1565. With what result, can you say?

—With no immediate result. This resulted in my ringing up subsequently.

1566. So that if Captain Kelly were asked we can assume that he did not tell Mr. Fagan?

—Possibly.

1567. Deputy Treacy has referred to your statement that you are happy that the signatures were in accordance with the specimen signatures. We have as we saw this morning the signature of Anne O’Brien which was a signature which had been written on some other piece of paper and stuck to a card?

—Yes.

1568. In circumstances where Anne O’Brien was known to you as living in Stephen’s Green, you did not think it peculiar that it was not possible to get her to sign the card itself?

—The signature of Anne O’Brien, I take it, was handed back to the branch on a slip of paper and was stuck on the card in our office I should imagine.

1569. Yes. I can appreciate that if Anne O’Brien’s address were in Kildare or Wicklow there would be an acceptance of the fact that it was difficult to have her sign this card but in circumstances where her address was given as Stephen’s Green do you not think that it would have been presumed that it would have been possible that she could have signed the card herself?

—Yes, had we a number on Stephen’s Green. The address is just Stephen’s Green. We had no number.

1570. The fact that it was so vague did not prompt you to ask if there was a more specific address for her?

—No. I always considered that there were a lot of questions that we should not ask about this particular account.

1571. In circumstances again of the overdraft, that this was a special account as far as your understanding of it was, being funded by Government, in the question of the overdraft of £10,000 approximately, you say here that because of the fact that there was a name of someone you did not know you felt that you should contact the Department and express your anxiety about it?

—Yes.

1572. But in view of the fact that it was a Government fund would you not have been more happy about an overdraft there than you would, say, in the case of somebody like myself?

—Well, I would at least know you if you were a client. I would have known you as a person. I did not know George Dixon.

1573. But you knew that the moneys were coming, that to date every lodgment in your bank to the George Dixon account had come from Government funds?

—Well, I know that it had come from the account in the three names, the Belfast Fund, yes.

1574. Yes, which was, as far as you were aware, a Government, a Department of Finance fund?

—Yes.

1575. In those circumstances would you not have been happy about any temporary overdraft? Surely you would have accepted that the best client you possibly could have in the matter of an overdraft——

——No.

1576. You would not?

—No.

1577. You would not afford any better consideration to the Department of Finance than you would——

——No, because, first of all, if the £10,000 stayed in my account for any length of time I would have to report it to my own head office, a matter I did not want to do either.

1578. Finally, Mr. Deacon, would that then suggest that at this stage you were becoming suspicious not of the Government but rather of George Dixon?

—No, at that stage certainly not.

1579. Thank you.

1580. Chairman.—Mr. Deacon, in respect of that £10,000 overdraft which appeared on February 12th and about which you got worried did you at the same time look across at the main account on the same dates?

—I probably would have.

1581. And the fact that they were only slightly in credit?

—Yes.

1582. Did that increase your worry?

—It would have made me more worried.

1583. We have on these three banking submissions certain writing and I will take them in order. If we take the main account first, on 15th January there is a date in there, 22/1/70, and some initial after it. What does that signify?

—That signifies that the statement for that account was handed out on that date and that the official who handed it out compared the balance on the statement with the ledger.

1584. Could that official be identified?

—I certainly could not identify it anyway.

1585. Would you know from your banking records what official was operating or handling this particular business on that day?

—We probably could make enquiries. Possibly Mr. Moore could give us some idea who that was. Yes, a very junior official called David Power, I am informed.

1586. Now we go down to the 5th March and there is another entry there.

—I am sorry. It is David Carroll.

1587. On 5th March there is another entry, date 16/3/70, and again an indecipherable——

—That is Mr. Power now I think. That signifies that he compared the balance on the statement with the balance on the ledger.

1588. Does it mean he sent out a statement?

—That he handed a statement to somebody but that before he did so he compared the balance on the statement with the balance on the ledger.

1589. So we have here then on this main account a record of two statements being handed out?

—That is correct.

1590. Would return cheques be handed out at the same time?

—Yes.

1591. Now, if we turn to the one in the name of George Dixon there is writing there on 22nd December: “Cashed NBP 2/11/69”. What does that signify?

—That signifies that we were rung up from the National Provincial Bank on the 21st November, 1969 to know was a cheque of George Dixon’s for £3½ thousand OK for cash.

1592. And you replied, I take it, that it was?

—Yes, there was £8,000 in the account at the time.

1593. On the 9th January, 1970, opposite that date, there is another date entered 22/1/70 signed by——

——Carroll. Yes, that indicates that Mr. Carroll, a junior official, compared the balance on the statement with the balance on the ledger.

1594. And sent out a statement and sent out a return cheque?

—Possibly handed the statement to somebody else. He at least compared the two balances. That is all that indicates.

1595. Again on 25th March there is another barely decipherable entry. I think it is 20th——

——The 16th March I think.

1596. I do not know. There is a different initial.

—Power.

1597. Does that mean the same thing?

—Yes.

1598. So that in this Dixon account we find that cheques and statements were sent out twice?

—Yes.

1599. If you turn to the Anne O’Brien account, opposite the 9th March there is a date 16/3/70 and initials again.

—Mr. Power again.

1599(a). When these questions were being asked all round the table, and analogous questions of Mr. Dixon and also of Mr. Walsh—sorry, Mr. Deacon—nobody came forward to give us this information off the cuff, so to speak. There was a certain reticence, it appeared to me at any rate?

—I did not know that anyone could speak. I was sitting over there and I did not think I was permitted to get up and speak.

1600. You have been sitting a long time there now?

—But I have given you any information, I hope.

Deputy MacSharry.—That he was asked.

Deputy Keating.—Yes.

1601. Chairman.—In respect of the lodgments to the Dixon account, we have returns from you here—lodgments for current accounts—and there are five lodgments which I think cover all the Dixon account. The first one is for £13,000 lodged to a Mr. K?

—Yes, Mr. Chairman.

1602. There are no initials on that, no teller’s initials. Does that mean anything?

—No. That was taken in by myself. It did not go through a teller.

1603. It was taken in by yourself?

—Yes.

1604. Then the next one is for £11,450?

—Yes.

1605. Consisting of two items, £7,000 transferred from the main account and £445 which was taken as coming from the Clones account?

—Yes. Well, I rely on Mr. Walsh’s memory for that.

1606. That was lodged by George Dixon?

—Yes.

1607. There is a stamp here and teller’s initials—who took that one?

—Mr. Walsh.

1608. And if it was lodged by George Dixon was not George Dixon standing across the counter from him?

—I presume he was, or somebody.

1609. Who posed as George Dixon?

—Posed as George Dixon.

1610. Mr. Walsh then saw George Dixon?

—Yes. He saw this person, but that, you will see, is not George Dixon’s signature.

1611. Well, at least Mr. Walsh took it as lodged by George Dixon?

—Yes.

1612. As far as he knew the man was George Dixon?

—Yes.

1613. On the next one you have a lodgment for £12,000. This was lodged by Loughran and Murphy?

—Yes.

1614. There are no teller’s initials on that?

—No.

1615. Do you know who took it?

—That lodgment was taken by myself and I wrote on it just Loughran and Murphy to know where it came from. It came from the other account.

1616. And who was on the far side of the counter?

—That I cannot tell you. I should imagine that it was Kelly—James Kelly.

1617. You have another one then, a lodgment for £1,000?

—Yes.

1618. That was lodged by Mr. F?

—Yes.

1619. Can you recognise there the teller who took that?

—I took it myself.

1620. “I took it myself.” Mr. F was lodging it to you. You recognised Mr. F?

—I did not know the man at all.

1621. The man who lodged it you took to be Mr. F?

—Yes, he signed it.

1622. And the final one of £4,000 was lodged by J. J. Kelly?

—Yes.

1623. Who took that?

—Mr. Morrissey.

1624. That would be Captain Kelly?

—Yes.

1625. Now, I am sorry to go back on this again, Mr. Deacon. These three RD cheques—

—Yes.

1626. In the three accounts there were no bounced cheques in the first and no bouncers in the second one but there were three bouncers apparently in the last one. Is that correct?

—I beg your pardon. I did not get the——

1627. Three cheques signed by Anne O’Brien on the Anne O’Brien account and that is the only account in which cheques were referred to drawer?

—That is all, yes. These are the only three cheques.

1628. The first one is “Pay cash, £300”?

—Yes.

1629. You have that in front of you perhaps?

—Yes, Mr. Chairman.

1630. “Pay cash, £300”—that was, I take it, negotiated at the Crumlin Cross West Branch?

—That is correct.

1631. And there was no money to meet it?

—When it came to us there was not sufficient money.

1632. Does that mean that there was £300 actually paid out by the branch in Crumlin Cross West?

—That is correct.

1633. Who meets that?

—The responsibility is that of the person who paid it. The responsibility rests on the person who paid it.

1634. Whoever the teller is in the Crumlin Cross West Branch?

—The responsibility is on Mr. Walsh in actual fact because he has initialled it.

1635. The next one is £8,500 and this was, as far as I can read it, presented at the Grafton Street Munster and Leinster Branch?

—That is correct.

1636. This was payable to Wellux Limited. You do not happen to know whether they had an account in that particular branch or not?

—No, I did not. I could not imagine them having cashed the cheque for £8,500 to a limited company.

1637. What would happen in a case like that? When they present the cheque the account would be credited to that amount and when the cheque went back for clearance and there was nothing to meet it and they would inform the Grafton Street Branch and they would debit it? We do not know whether the money was actually paid out or not.

—Yes.

1638. But we would know from the Grafton Street people?

—They could tell you what exactly happened.

1639. On that cheque there are numbers crossed out. The number 598380 is crossed out and the bank numbers 925412 put in?

—Yes.

1640. What does that signify?

—I was endeavouring to assist the inquiry here. I had not got the cheque so I got another cheque; I crossed out the number on it and put the number that was on the original cheque on it and made out, as best I could, a copy of it.

1641. So that number which is crossed out does not then represent anybody’s account?

—No. It was the number of the actual cheque that was presented to us.

1642. The next cheque to Seámus Brady, signed by Anne O’Brien again, is for £1,000?

—Yes.

1643. That was returned RD?

—Yes.

1644. The number is crossed out and there are different numbers put in—925010. That is the same explanation?

—The very same explanation.

1645. It is returned to Crumlin Cross, West?

—That particular one was returned to the Bank of Ireland, Ballymun.

1646. You do not know whether money was paid on that cheque or not?

—No.

1647. You do not know?

—No.

1648. The one final point is the question of this witnessing of signatures. Do I gather from you that you do not attach particular importance to the method pursued or not pursued as regards witnessing signatures to these three accounts through which £68,000, or approximately £68,000 of public money, was put?

—We do attach importance to it.

1649. You would agree that the failure to live up——

—I think there were exceptional circumstances obtaining in this case.

1650. Do you think the exceptional circumstances were of such a nature as to justify this departure from what would be regarded as normal banking practice?

—I do.

1651. Chairman.—That is all.

1652. Deputy Barrett.—In relation to the George Dixon account, at the Arms Trial Captain Kelly was asked “In relation to opening this account, do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting anything sinister at this stage. I want to get the facts. You were the person who handled the actual mechanics of opening each account” referring to the Dixon and the Anne O’Brien accounts and he answered “If you mean did I go to the manager and suggest it, yes”. Have you any recollection of his coming to discuss those accounts with you?

—No. Not with me.

1653. None at all.

—No, none at all.

1654. Deputy Briscoe.—I only wanted to say, Mr. Deacon, that it seems to me that the questions which have been put to you and the answers we have been receiving show that you were acting in good faith. You had an account opened on what you considered was good authority. You had got to know Captain Kelly who appeared to you to be perfectly all right. It did not enter into your mind that there was anything going on. You treated this account in the same way as any other account. When the overdrafts occurred in the normal way you were less worried than you would be about most accounts. You knew there were State moneys at the back of this. You just made inquiries. I can realise your difficulty in trying to recall instances that happened so long ago particularly when one is not alive to any particular suspicions, as it were. If there is anything you can think of that might throw light on any of this money and its disbursement we would be glad to hear of it. We do not have to invite you back. You can volunteer to come back yourself.

—I do not think there is anything.

1655. Deputy Briscoe.—I will say no more than that.

1656. Deputy R. Burke.—While you were not personally involved in the opening of the accounts you did say in your statement that you had discussions with Mr. Walsh. In these discussions were the reasons for opening these subsidiary accounts discussed? Were these reasons discussed?

—Yes.

1657. If so what particular reasons were given for opening the subsidiary accounts?

—More easy distribution of money. For instance, my idea was that should Captain Kelly require, shall we say, £10,000 or even a much smaller amount, £3,000, he would have to be going and getting two signatures probably every other day for small amounts and possibly two signatures, I thought, of people in the North of Ireland—rather than get one big payment and have transfers made under proper authority to a subsidiary account—call it that if you like—on which one person could draw.

1658. Did you discuss with Mr. Walsh or did either of you put the question to Captain Kelly whether Dixon and O’Brien were, in fact, connected with the Northern Ireland Committees?

—No. I think we would have assumed they were.

1659. But they were probably resident in this part of the country for easy withdrawal?

—Yes.

1660. Deputy E. Collins.—I assume you had discussions with Mr. Walsh when you took over as manager at the end of 1969?

—I took over in June, 1968. I was already in the branch when the accounts were opened.

1661. You came into contact with the accounts directly at the beginning of 1970?

—Yes.

1662. I notice a difference in opinion as to the money. You are of the definite opinion that these were official moneys coming from the Department of Finance and that the accounts were opened in an official capacity by the Department of Finance and that the Department gave its full authority to disbursements?

—Yes. That is right.

1663. Mr. Walsh is of a slightly different opinion?

—Yes.

1664. He thought the moneys could come from anywhere. He mentioned Bernadette Devlin’s money from America and other public moneys. I assume you both had a discussion about the account?

—I could imagine that the account was mentioned casually from time to time.

1665. Did the differing opinions come to your notice?

—No, everyone had his own opinion as to what was going on at that time, you know. There is a lodgment of money there from America.

1666. It came to the Department?

—Yes.

1667. You are aware that Mr. Walsh’s opinion of the situation is different from yours?

—Possibly.

1668. Did you ever discuss this difference?

—I did not even know of the difference until now, if you like. I think Mr. Walsh may have given the impression that these accounts were not connected with the Government in some way. I think he really knew they were, as much as I know.

1669. In your discussions with Mr. Fagan did he indicate how official it was?

—Yes, when lodgments were being made Mr. Fagan mentioned Mr. Haughey—maybe not Mr. Haughey but his Minister—on several occasions.

1670. Why did he mention Mr. Haughey? For what purpose?

—In regard to his instructions in regard to transferring money—that his Minister had instructed him to get so-and-so moneys transferred.

1671. You do not know of any discussions between Mr. Walsh and Mr. Fagan with Mr. Haughey’s name mentioned?

—No, I would not know.

1672. You said earlier on that you were surprised that the Garda report said—Would you like to read the passage which is marked there?

(Document handed to witness).

—I would like to comment on that. I did decline to make a written statement. I suggested I did not feel that I should make it. Apart from that I helped in every way I possibly could.

1673. I am not interested in the written statement aspect. I am interested in the other aspect.

—That I was to all intents and purposes unco-operative?

1674. I am putting that report to you and you deny the implications?

—No, I would not agree with that.

1675. You would not agree with the Garda report?

—No, I would not.

1676. Chairman.—Has this been put on the record—what you handed to the witness?

1677. Deputy E. Collins.—I have put it earlier on in my own cross-examination.

1678. Chairman.—That is what you have put to the witness.

1679 Deputy E. Collins.—You said that the opening of a subsidiary account would have been normal in your opinion for easy withdrawal?

—I think understandably in the circumstances.

1680. Even to the extent, so far as you are concerned, that you were dealing with State moneys?

—Yes.

1681. As far as you are concerned you discussed the matter with Mr. Fagan and Mr. Fagan knew about Mr. Dixon and Ann O’Brien?

—I do not know that I discussed that particular aspect with Mr. Fagan. I do not know that I ever discussed with Mr. Fagan the opening of those two subsidiary accounts.

1682. At any stage?

—Yes.

1683. Would you not sort of imagine there that the opening of subsidiary accounts involving State money should have been a matter for discussion between you as manager and Mr. Fagan as, so to speak, representative of the Minister?

—I would not think so because the moneys had been withdrawn from the main account under the proper mandate and under the proper signatures.

1684. Chairman.—Gentlemen, we had arranged with Mr. Murray to take him at 5.30 and we have now strayed along until half past six. I would hope that——

Deputy E. Collins.—I have finished with him.

1685. Chairman.—Others may want to finish the circuit. I want to know how we stand.

Deputy FitzGerald.—Two questions.

1686. Chairman.—Perhaps, we could crave Mr. Murray’s indulgence to finish this, so.

1687. Deputy FitzGerald.—Could I just ask you, in relation to the insertion on the George Dixon account, “cash NPB, 21/11/’69”—that does not tell you, of course, what branch of the National Provincial Bank?

—No.

1688. Could you tell us in whose handwriting it is so that we could make further inquiries from the relevant official?

—I think it is Mr. Gleeson who, I think, will be here tomorrow.

1689. Good. That helps us. You also mentioned earlier that there were some officials who had left and that you did not believe—you believed none of them could help?

—No.

1690. When you say you believe they could not help, do you mean that you have spoken to all of them and that they cannot help?

—The handing out of a statement is such a minor affair that to happen a year ago nobody would remember who handed it out.

1691. But we have since established the names of the two officials who, if they did not hand it out, were certainly involved in the transaction of handing it out and, you know, this is most valuable to get their names because we can now identify people whom we can actually examine?

—Yes, but as I say those officials only compare to the balance in the statement with the balance in the ledger.

1692. Yes, but what worries me though is that we asked you had everybody been asked questions about this and had they all been pressed if they remembered and you said they all had?

—Yes.

1693. But from what you said now it sounds as if some have not and as if your own feeling is that there is not much point in asking them, that they will not remember. One wonders how thorough, you know, was the examination of people when you yourself were so lacking in confidence that it would yield anything?

—Anybody who has gone from the branch, I do not see how they could have been in any way involved. I said that probably who handed out that statement was an official who was on the counter and because of that, would have had quite a few years service, well certainly have three or four years service. But any officials transferred from the branch are completely junior officials that might he there a fortnight or just passing by, in other words.

1694. Yes, I see. The only other thing is that in regard to the business of the separate accounts, Mr. Walsh had just suggested putting the account into three names so as to control it properly and, within two days, three days, the accounts were opened in individual names as subsidiary accounts or as related accounts and you say you saw nothing odd in that although it was designed to circumvent, in a sense—perhaps not circumvent but was designed to modify the very control that had been suggested two or three days earlier?

—Yes.

1695. It makes me wonder at that stage how—the implication is that you knew Kelly would be the person withdrawing all the money when you say that it was designed to facilitate him so that he would not have to go off and get other signatures?

—Oh, no——

1696. How so soon, at such an early stage, did you know that he was the person who would be withdrawing all the money?

—But we did not know.

1697. But then why did you——

—He turned out to be, but we did not know.

1698. But you gave as your reason for accepting that the subsidiary accounts or the related accounts were quite in order that this seemed a reasonable thing because Captain Kelly would otherwise have to go off and get three signatures or two signatures in Northern Ireland every time. That implies that you knew at the point that the accounts were opened that he was the person who would be withdrawing the money?

—Well, I knew—we felt that he was the person who would be distributing quite an amount of the money.

1699. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Are subsidiary accounts a common feature of banking?

—No.

1700. Would there be many individuals or companies—I could imagine companies running subsidiary accounts?

—Yes, probably with associated companies. A parent company might have six subsidiaries.

1701. Would they be transferring——

—from the parent to the others?

1702. From the parent to the others?

—They would, yes.

1703. You would have no idea of what percentage this would work out?

—Oh, no.

1704. Another thing—this brings me back to the conversation between you and Mr. Fagan on the naming of the accounts. Could it be possible that when you were talking to Mr. Fagan that you might have said to him in a colloquial manner: “That Northern account of your Department is out of funds” or something like that?

—It could be possible.

1705. Deputy MacSharry.—Mr. Deacon, just one question. We understand that the requests to the Department of Finance from the Belfast Committee more or less came through Captain Kelly and that they came to Mr. Fagan, to the Minister, in such ways as “Kelly’s people want more money”?

—Yes.

1706. From that you would gather that he was more or less the watchdog on the accounts in your branch?

—Yes.

1707. And did you look at him in that way? Or did you overlook him and go direct to the Department concerned.

—No, I looked on him as an accredited agent.

1708. You looked on him?

—I looked on him as an accredited agent, yes.

1709. Did you discuss the affairs of the accounts with him?

—Only inasmuch as the account might be overdrawn——

1710. Yes, that is what I mean?

—Purely casual.

1711. So that it could be from you that he would get this idea to go to the Department for the funds?

—Oh, no.

1712. Well, if an account was becoming overdrawn?

—Well, if an account were becoming overdrawn I undoubtedly mentioned it to him if he came in looking for money.

1713. So that you did, as well as the two or three times that you think you mentioned this to Mr. Fagan by phone or to the Department of Finance, you could also have, on numerous occasions, mentioned the same thing to Captain Kelly?

—Well, it may—I would not say on numerous occasions but there could have been an occasion when I did mention it.

1714. Chairman.—Mr. Deacon, I wonder could you send us a little memo in respect of the names that appear here that I went over with you, just the names of these people——

—I could yes, certainly. You just want those names written down now?

1715. That is all we want, names and their present addresses.

—They are both in Baggot Street.

1716. Thank you very much, Mr. Deacon.

The Committee went into Private Session at 6.30 p.m. and resumed Public Session at 8.50 p.m.

Mr. John Harold Wright, sworn and examined.

1717. Chairman.—Before we begin, Mr. Wright, under examination you will have occasion to refer to names. Now we have adopted the system here of using code letters for some names to some of which you may have occasion to refer. This is for the purpose of avoiding putting individuals at risk, particularly those outside the jurisdiction, and to enable us to secure maximum information for our consideration here. Would you be prepared to accept that system?

—Oh, yes. I am quite agreeable to that system.

1718. We have your assurance then on that, Mr. Wright?

—Yes.

1719. Thank you. You have not any preliminary statement or memorandum?

—No, no preliminary.

1720. You recall the opening of this account which we call the Bank of Ireland Clones account?

—Yes. I can recall it reasonably well.

1721. The account was opened first on 9th October with a sum of £5,000 from the Irish Red Cross?

—If I might refer to my——

1722. Certainly, yes?

(Document referred to).

—Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

1723. And then you got at a later date a further subvention on 17th October of £5,000 and on November 4th another subvention of £5,000?

—That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

1724. That was the total lodgment?

—The total lodgment.

1725. To that account, and then it was disembursed by six withdrawals?

—That is correct, yes, Mr. Chairman.

1726. Leaving a balance of £49. 11s. 8d.?

—£49. 11s. 8d., yes.

1727. Now you issued a mandate, did you, when this account was being opened?

—Yes. To the best of my knowledge, yes, Mr. Chairman.

1728. And a cheque book?

—And a cheque book—yes, Mr. Chairman.

1729. Have you got a copy of the mandate with you?

—I have not, no. I have not a copy of the mandate. I sent the copy to my head office in Dublin. They sent it to you. I have not got a copy, but this shows you I sent it to Dublin head office. (Document produced). It is a receipt for a photostat copy.

1730. May we make a copy of this document?

—Pardon?

1731. May we make a copy of this document that you have submitted to us now?

—I was given it by the Law Agent. Really I should ask for his permission. He did not tell me to submit it. It is just a secret document.

1732. The mandate is in the head office here in Dublin?

—No, that is the receipt for the mandate. I have not a copy of it. It is in the Department of Finance.

1733. The Department of Finance have got the mandate?

—No. I thought it would be in your possession, you see. I thought you would have a photostat copy.

1734. You may wish to refer to the code letters now when I ask you this question: can you recall to whom the mandate was issued?

—Yes.

1735. In whose names can you recall was the account opened?

—Yes. The mandate was issued to F, G and H.

1736. Now have you the six cheques that were issued in your possession?

—I think they are also mentioned in that. The six cheques were submitted to the Department of Finance. I have not got possession of those.

1737. Were all these cheques made out “Pay cash”?

—I am afraid I cannot remember that. If you could show me the photostat copies I would certainly see, but I could not remember that. The specimens I find—the photostat copies—they are all made out “Pay cash” all right.

1738-1838. Are you able to identify who drew the money?

—I beg your pardon.

1839. Are you able to identify who drew the money? Take, for example, the first cheque on October 10th?

—I could not identify them in order and I could not identify them all but I could identify one on the list as having cashed some of them. That is as far as I could go and I was personally aware of each cheque that was presented.

1840. Could you give the code letter?

—Yes. Mr. F.

1841. Mr. F. Mr. F drew £2,000. On what date?

—I am afraid I am at a loss there. I cannot specify amounts. He certainly drew some of that £2,000 but I could not give you the exact dates. I have the dates the cheques went through. I cannot remember which particular dates Mr. F was in, but he certainly drew some of the cheques— at least two of them, I think.

1842. The cheque of October 10th?

—October 10th.

1843. Deputy Briscoe.—It is 251.

1844. Chairman.—251?

—Yes. I see the cheque 251.

1845. That was endorsed by Mr. I. Is that correct?

—I would not remember. I do not remember. It possibly was, yes.

1846. There was a cheque drawn on October 17th?

—Yes, Mr. Chairman.

1847. Again for £2,000?

—Yes.

1848. And can you tell us who was that endorsed by?

—I cannot recollect the endorsements at all.

1849. Deputy FitzGerald.—We are at a disadvantage in this case. For the first time we have not with us the actual cheques. All the witness is seeing is a photostat which blocks out the initials. Is there any chance of getting the actual cheques?

1850. Chairman.—The witness is at a disadvantage.

1851. Deputy FitzGerald.—And we are at a disadvantage in not seeing the cheques.

1852. Chairman.—Yes.

1853. Deputy FitzGerald.—There is nobody here from the Department of Finance.

1854. Chairman.—I understand that the cheques are in Mr. Murray’s safe in the Department of Finance and we cannot get at them at present—not tonight. We will continue. You see a photostat copy of a cheque of 24th October? 253?

—253, is it not?

1855. £2,000? Yes, 253.

—Yes.

1856. You cannot recall who endorsed that either?

—No, I cannot recall the sequence.

1857. November 6th—there is another cheque for £2,000?

—November 6th? What is the number, please?

1858. The number is 254.

—I cannot find 254. I have it now. Yes— I am sorry—254, yes.

1859. There are two further cheques, 255 and 256?

—Yes.

1860. These were drawn “pay cash”, also, but these cheques are not endorsed. Is there any significance in that?

—Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.

1861. You cannot tell us where these cheques were lodged at a later stage?

—Where they were lodged? No, Mr. Chairman. I do not know. I cannot tell you that. Actually they were drawn. Cash was drawn for the cheques but I do not know where it was.

1862. Cash was drawn?

—For all the cheques, yes, except one I think, I slipped up there. I have not the cheques. I think one cheque came through the Dublin clearing. Maybe we will see on the front. 256. It is not clear on my photostat copy. It appears to have another brand on the front. It is another bank. I cannot make out the bank. It is not clear on my copy.

1863. Deputy Briscoe.—It looks like the National Bank.

1864. Deputy FitzGerald.—No, the Munster and Leinster Bank.

1865. Chairman.—Mr. Wright, can you recall in respect of the mandate—this was an account held in three names?

—Yes.

1866. These three specimen signatures were put on the mandate—would that be correct?

—Yes, speaking from memory, I think that is correct, yes.

1867. Were these three signatures affixed in the bank, in the presence of some official in the bank? Were they duly witnessed?

—I do not think so, no. I think there was just one duly witnessed. There was just one signature known. I do not think they were witnessed. It may have been witnessed but that is a banking practice that people always do not call. It is not just practicable to get everybody in.

1868. Did the mandate as such leave the bank?

—Before——

1869. Before it was formed?

—Before it was signed or after it was signed?

1870. At any stage?

—The mandate was probably made out— I probably drafted out the mandate first and gave it to Mr. F to have it signed and then they signed the mandate, yes.

1871. I beg your pardon?

—The mandate was probably drafted out. I do not know which—the mandate would be drafted out.

1872. Yes?

—And a copy, or Mr. F probably took it away and got it signed by the other two members. This is to the best of my knowledge now. I am not just—I cannot be one hundred per cent sure of this, of course.

1873. Only one signature then was witnessed in the bank—would that be correct?

—The mandate proper you see, they just send you the mandate to open the thing. I do not think the signatures are witnessed in that at all, in the mandate to open the account so there is not a question of any witness at all on the mandate.

1874. Thank you very much. Deputy Collins.

1875. Deputy E. Collins.—The account was opened initially by a cheque from the Red Cross Society?

—I beg your pardon?

1876. By a transfer from the Red Cross Society of £5,000?

——That is correct, Deputy Burke.

1877. Deputy Collins.

—Deputy Collins, sorry.

1878. Did you have any discussions with the Red Cross as to the nature of these funds?

—No discussion with the Red Cross.

1879. No discussion at all?

——No discussion.

1880. You discussed the matter with F, G and H before the cheque arrived from the Red Cross?

—Before the funds, you mean?

1881. Yes?

—Yes, well, Mr. F came along and told me that the funds would be coming from the Red Cross, to the best of my knowledge.

1882. Mr. F stated that the funds would be coming from the Red Cross?

—Yes, well, he stated that funds would be coming. I am not sure: I do not recollect whether he said the source of the funds. He told me money would come. He possibly did not state the source of the funds but it came to my knowledge, of course, the source of the funds. I could be wrong in saying that he told me the source of the funds.

1883. Mr. F was the gentleman with whom you had most contact?

—Pardon.

1884. Mr. F was the person with whom you had most contact?

—Yes.

1885. All the time?

—Yes, Deputy.

1886. Did you come in contact at all with Mr. G and Mr. H?

—No, I did not come in contact with Mr. G or Mr. H, to the best of my knowledge.

1887. Did you have a discussion with Mr. F as to the nature of the account in general or to disbursements, the use to which the disbursements were to be put?

—No, I do not think we discussed that, I mean, I probably said I thought it was probably for certain relief purposes and left it at that. There was not any general discussion on the subject.

1888. He did not mention or you did not mention the nature of the relief purposes?

—I do not think so, not to the best of my knowledge.

1889. Have you got the ledger page of the account?

—I have, yes.

1890. Could it be possible that we would see it?

—Yes.

(Document produced).

1891. What was the nature of the instructions given to you about the sending of statements and information in general?

—I do not think there were any definite instructions about that. They are not on the ledger sheet, anyway.

1892. Do you recollect asking for such instructions? Would it not be normal to seek such instructions?

—Normally, we just send them out if there are no instructions to the contrary.

1893. To whom would you have sent the correspondence, returned cheques, statements in relation to this account normally?

—To Mr. F, as he was the person whom I interviewed.

1894. Whom you had most contacts with?

—Yes.

1895. Written in pencil on this ledger page is: “No postal correspondence” and it is initialled by——

—Oh! I see. That’s probably initialled by me. I am sorry. I overlooked that.

1896. Would you identify it?

—Yes, I am sorry, yes, I overlooked that.

1897. You initialled that?

—I initialled that, yes.

1898. Did those instructions come from yourself or rather suggested by yourself or did they come from Mr. F?

—I cannot remember that. But we, as you know, are just one mile from the Border and we do not send out correspondence, very little correspondence to anyone of any nature in Northern Ireland because they do not like their correspondence coming out from the 26 Counties. It is the usual practice with most accounts.

1899. Would you elaborate on that?

—Well, the people, possibly, for various reasons, people in the North of Ireland do not like getting correspondence from the South with the bank seal on it, so we do not send out correspondence very much to people in Northern Ireland.

1900. You would probably have handed him whatever correspondence you had, statements or returned cheques?

—Yes, we would hand them out, yes.

1901. Were you aware that it was probable that some of the funds would come from Government sources?

—Was I aware——?

1902. Yes?

—No, I did not know where the funds were coming from until they arrived.

1903. Mr. F did not say it to you at any stage?

—Well, I do not think so, not from memory. Of course I know now where the funds arrived from because, I mean, I got what are called the credit transfers but at that time I did not know.

1904. So you had no cause to contact anyone in the Civil Service about the account at any stage?

—No, no contact with the Civil Service.

1905. The cash which was taken from the account, was it in English money specifically or was it in Irish denomination?

—Well, to the best of my knowledge it was of a mixed nature. We get in quite a lot of Northern notes and Southern notes but I think there was no specific request for any particular type of notes. Like, there may have been for denominations, £1, £5, but otherwise, no.

1906. There was no specific request at any stage for English notes?

—Well, you must remember it is a year ago and there could have been but I do not think so. I think there was no particular request.

1907. Did you have any discussion at any stage with any members of your own staff about the account, about the activity of the account?

—I suppose there is a certain amount of talk in every office about accounts but nothing more than usual.

1908. You did not feel anything unusual about this account?

—I did not feel anything unusual about it. Of course I read about it on the newspapers and all mixed up with this other case and naturally—

1909. When did you become aware of anything unusual?

—Well, from my point of view there was not anything unusual about the account.

1910. At any stage?

—Not that I am aware of. It was a perfectly normal banking transaction. An account was opened, cash was withdrawn, and cheques were paid.

1911. On the reverse side of a cheque there is a stamp. I cannot read it. The Governors and Company of the Bank of Ireland, is it? It does not come out too well, actually.

1912. Deputy FitzGerald.—It is under manager?

1913. Deputy E. Collins.—Assistant Manager.

—I do not know why the Assistant General Manager signed that.

1914. What would be the purpose of stamping that?

—Well, you ask me a question and I can only guess at this. I have not been in touch with the Assistant General Manager but he may have signed those for verification purposes when he sent them to the Department. Those cheques were not signed, as far as I know, by the Assistant General Manager when I had them.

1915. Captain Kelly—did you ever meet Captain Kelly?

—I am not aware of meeting Captain Kelly.

1916. He was never in your bank?

—I am not saying he was not in, but I say that I am not aware of meeting him. He could have been. I mean, I have read so much about this trial and all that I imagine I have seen all these people before, but——

1917. The last two cheques are not endorsed. Is there any particular reason for that?

—No particular reasons. Probably one of two causes. It might have been Mr. F who cashed them and was known or possibly an oversight.

1918. It is rather important. Could you think about it again? Are you fairly sure it was Mr. F?

—Oh, I am not certain it was Mr. F. I put that forward as a reason as he was pretty well known. That is all.

1919. You prepared the mandate in relation to the account yourself?

—I think so, yes. So far as I remember, yes.

1920. We have not got a copy of it. Do you remember if the signatures were witnessed by anyone?

—I think they were witnessed all right. I am not 100 per cent sure without seeing the mandate. We have not got a photostat copy of it.

1921. Deputy E. Collins.—Chairman, we will have to acquire the mandate.

1922. Chairman.—Very good.

1923. Deputy E. Collins.—On cheque No. 256 the date appears as the 10th or the 18th. Which? Do you recollect?

—You see that is the cheque that bears another brand. It would come through the Dublin clearing. It was dated that date and then it did not arrive at Clones until the 18th. You see, it had to come right through the Government clearing which takes a few days after it was presented in Dublin.

1924. Deputy E. Collins.—I think that is all, Chairman.

1925. Deputy FitzGerald.—That cheque we have just been talking about, 256, that is one which was signed by Messrs. F and G and was not cashed with you. Something else was done with it?

—Yes.

1926. It would appear to us that it was lodged into one of the accounts in Baggot Street and came back to you. Consequently Mr. F could not have been in your bank about that cheque?

—That is correct, yes.

1927. Right. He, in fact, is only down as endorsing one cheque, that of October 17th and the other cheques that were endorsed were two by Mr. I and one by Mr. J?

—Yes.

1928. There only remains one cheque, the cashed cheque of November 10th for £2,500. You have said that Mr. I, Mr. F rather, cashed several cheques?

—Oh, I did not say he cashed several cheques. I said on about two occasions I remember.

1929. On two occasions?

—I think I distinctly remember him—if I am not confused about him being in at the opening of the account—that he cashed two cheques, Mr. F.

1930. He cashed two at the opening of the account?

—No, I say if I am not confused about the time he was in opening the account, he cashed two cheques in all.

1931. At different periods?

—I think so, yes.

1932. It would appear, therefore, that unless he cashed cheques endorsed by Mr. I and Mr. J which is, perhaps, improbable, that the two cheques he cashed must have been those of October 17th, endorsed to him, and November 10th which was endorsed by nobody, so that if he cashed two cheques it would almost certainly have to be those two unless he were cashing cheques endorsed by Mr. I and Mr. J. I think this is possibly of some importance on the question of what happened the November 10th cheque?

—The November 10th cheque came through the clearing, yes.

1933. You know, the November 10th cheque was not the last cheque which more or less cleared the account. That was the November 18th one. I was going to ask you whether you could recollect Mr. F being there when the last cheque was cashed——?

—I am afraid I do not remember.

1934. But it was not the last because there was still £4,500 in the account at that stage?

—Yes.

1935. It is probably as near as we can get to it, I think. You were asked whether you had any—whether you thought there was anything odd about the account. You never entertained until the whole thing appeared in the newspaper any suspicions as to the purpose for which the money might be used?

—No, I had no suspicions. It was an ordinary banking account, as far as I was concerned.

1936. I mean the banking account was ordinary but it was made out as an account, was it for the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress? Was that the title?

—Yes.

1937. And you accepted that at its face value?

—Oh, yes.

1938. That is what it was for?

—Yes.

1939. Right. Thank you very much?

—Thank you.

1940. Deputy H. Gibbons.—No questions.

1941. Deputy Keating.—Mr. Wright, how big is the office in Clones? How many people?

—Four of a staff.

1942. I see. So that, in fact, it is likely you know immediately without being reported pretty well everything. It is easy to follow, easy to keep up with what is going on?

—Reasonably easy, yes.

1943. I want to read you two quotations to give you some background information because, as far as I am concerned, there is only one item in this whole matter I want to be clear about. The first quotation— I do not think you will be familar with either of them—is from a statement made by Anthony James Fagan on the 14th May, 1970, to Detective Inspector Edward J. O’Dea at Dublin Castle. The relevant sentence is, “At some stage this account was transferred from Clones to the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot St., Lower.” The second quotation is from a submission made to this Committee by the Department of Finance on the 9th December and on page four of that submission, paragraph 19, it says:

On 10th November, 1969, a sum of £7,500 was paid to the Irish Red Cross Society with a written request that it should be transferred to the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot St., Dublin.

Later on in the paragraph it says, and this is the real essential part:

Mr. Fagan states that the change from the Clones account to the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street, was made because Captain Kelly had explained that Clones was too inconvenient and that he wished to have the bank account transferred to a Dublin bank. Captain Kelly confirmed that it was the same account and in the same names as the Clones account.

I am sorry to have had to put so much background information in, but I think these quotations would not be familar to you. Now, as I understand the transfer of an account, if one is transferring an account one speaks to the people in the bank, the manager or other operative individual, and if the transfer is of the same account in the same names, then it is done through the bank authorities. Is that understanding correct?

—You mean that if the account is in Mr. A’s name and he wants to transfer it —he has an account in Dublin and an account in Clones and he wants the balance in Clones transferred to Dublin that there would be no difficulty about it?

1944. Yes.

—There would not be any difficulty in that case.

1945. The point I am making, Mr. Wright, is that in my understanding of it— and this is what I want to be clear about— this was not a transfer. My understanding of it was that the Clones account was simply abandoned without any notification to you or to any other servant of the bank in Clones and that a totally different account, in, in fact, a different bank was opened in Dublin. Now, did you have any knowledge of the opening of an account in the Munster and Leinster Bank in Dublin?

—Your specific question now is did I have any knowledge of the opening of an account in the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street, Dublin?

1946. Yes?

—Well, the definite answer to that is no.

1947. No. Did any of the people that you have named by letter speak to you of their desire to transfer that account from Clones to Dublin?

—Not to the best of my knowledge.

1948. For some months after November had you any knowledge of a transfer having taken place, as distinct from the fact that the account had become dormant? You could have seen that the account was dormant, that no cheques, that nothing was being paid in or taken out. But did you have any knowledge of a transfer?

—Knowledge of a transfer of the balance from Clones to Dublin?

1949. Yes?

—No, I have no knowledge of that. The cheques are all for cash. There is no transfer.

1950. You will appreciate, Mr. Wright, that this is important for us because in my understanding there is a very clear distinction between a transfer of the same account in the same names, which is what we were told happened in this official document, and what actually happened, which was that the account in Clones was allowed to become dormant and that a totally different account in a different branch, indeed, of a different bank in a different city, was opened without any information being given to the original bank. Now, that description I have just given —a totally new account, in a different bank, in a different city, without any information to you, was that a fair description of what happened last November?

—What you want to know is had I any knowledge—are you asking me—could I ask you a question? Are you asking me did I know that an account was opened in the Munster and Leinster Bank in Dublin, is that—

1951. Yes, well I have asked you that.

—Yes, but—yes?

1952. Had you any knowledge of any activities in regard to that account which could be accurately described as a transfer?

—From Clones to Dublin?

1953. Yes.

—No.

1954. Deputy Keating.—This is what I was driving at because you see the word “transfer” keeps occurring in all the documentation we have had up to now. As far as I am concerned there was no transfer but of course I do not want to put words into your mouth. That is my understanding of it. That is all I want to ask, Chairman.

1955. Deputy MacSharry.—Just two questions. Mr. Wright, while Deputy Keating was discussing the question of a transfer, has the account in Clones been closed as yet?

—Oh, yes, it has been closed. The money has been sent to the Minister for Finance.

1956. So that for the period of the 12 months that we might be discussing the account was still there in Clones? It could not have been transferred?

—Yes, it was there. The account was there from October, 1969, until November 18th last.

1957. Yes. So it was never as such transferred, it was just closed at a later date?

—That is right. Just a small balance was transferred to the Minister for Finance.

1958. You mentioned, you seem to have a strong memory for Mr. F?

—Yes.

1959. And he visited you in the opening of the account and you know that he drew money twice at least?

—Well, to the best of my knowledge, yes.

1960. But Mr. I and Mr. J also must have visited your bank at least once or twice each. Do you have any recollection of any visit?

—No, I have no recollection of that.

1961. Deputy Nolan.—I have just one question. It refers to Deputy Keating’s question on Book One, on page 4, paragraph 19. Mr. Fagan states that the change from the Clones account to the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street, Dublin, was made because Captain Kelly had explained that Clones was too inconvenient and that he wished to have the bank account transferred. In actual fact it was Captain Kelly who wanted the transfer. Mr. Fagan said it was changed. It was Captain Kelly who used the word “transfer”. So that in actual fact as far as you are concerned the bank account closed in Clones and you were not aware, as you already explained, that the new account had been opened?

—I beg your pardon?

1962. Well, it remained dormant rather, I mean there was no further transaction?

—The question you asked me is if the account remained dormant?

1963. Yes.

—Yes, that is correct.

1964. And the amount of £49-odd, or something was still there?

—Yes.

Deputy Nolan.—That is all, Mr. Chairman.

1965. Deputy Treacy.—Mr. Wright, referring to the US donation of £4,993——

—Pardon? Referring to what?

1966. Were there any other moneys besides the moneys transferred via the Red Cross into the Clones account?

—Not to the best of my knowledge.

1967. None at all? Just to follow up Deputy Keating’s question did Mr. I, F or J, who had been doing business with you in Clones——

—Did Mr.—I beg your pardon? What is the question?

1968. F, J and I—did they since then give you any reason as to why the account was transferred to Baggot Street, Dublin?

—No reason.

1969. Have they in fact done any business with you since then?

—No, they have not done any business since then.

1970. Have you met them since then?

—Well, I think this is outside a banking question, but I have not met them since then and I have not seen them either.

1971. Chairman.—Mr. Wright, have you got the credit drafts?

—The credit transfers?

1972. Yes, the credit transfers from——

—Yes, I have.

1973. Could we, perhaps, see them?

—Do you want to see these?

1974. Yes. You have three of them, I take it.

(Documents handed to Chairman).

1975. Deputy R. Burke.—We are going in a circular way here, Mr. Wright, and we can come back to the Chairman in a minute. Did Mr. F speak about the funding of this account in any terms which indicated that official Government moneys would be used?

—I beg your pardon, would you repeat the question?

1976. Yes. Did Mr. F in opening this account speak to you in any terms which would indicate that Government funds were to be used to keep this account going?

—I do not know. I cannot remember. Not to the best of my knowledge. As a matter of fact I think he came along and told me that funds would be coming. I do not think he even mentioned the source of the funds.

1977. He did not go into the source of the funds?

—That is to the best of my knowledge.

1978. Yes. That is all I want to ask.

1979. Deputy Briscoe.—I just want to say to Mr. Wright, this was just a normal account as far as you were concerned?

—An ordinary banking account.

1980. Opened in a normal manner. There was nothing in any way different about it and hundreds of other accounts possibly that you handle?

—No, no difference. It was just an ordinary banking account as far as I was concerned.

1981. Deputy FitzGerald.—I just want to be clear Mr. Wright, have you any recollection of dealing with anybody else other than Mr. F? I mean, was there any other——

—I certainly met the people who cashed the cheques but I mean, I probably could identify them if I met them but not—my memory for faces is better than my memory for names.

1982. Could I ask you just to look at the code list again and tell me whether you do in fact know Mr. I and Mr. J? Are they people you have ever met?

—Well, I think I recognise Mr. J from photographs in the paper but I do not think I ever met, I cannot——

1983. Since the event?

—I think it is since the event. But possibly I put two and two together and think I have met him but I am not sure.

1984. At the time the account was being operated had you ever met Mr. J or Mr. I?

—Up to the time?

1985. Up to last May?

—Had I ever met Mr. J? No, I had never met him.

1986. Of Mr. I?

—Or Mr. I.

1987. So that if they had come in and cashed cheques you would not have identified them or known them or any particular reason to remember them?

—No particular reason, no.

Chairman.—No other questions? That is all, Mr. Wright. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wright withdrew.

Mr. Thomas David Alexander Moore, sworn and examined.

1988. Chairman.—You are an official of the Munster and Leinster Bank at Lower Baggot Street?

—I am.

1989. Your official capacity is head ledger keeper?

—It is.

1990. You can recall this account of John White, John Loughran and Roger Murphy?

—Yes, I can.

1991. Was it you who entered those names in the ledger?

—Yes, it was I who did it.

1992. On whose instructions?

—That is my position inside there. I do this with all accounts.

1993. From what?

—From the mandate.

1994. The cautionary note that was put on some of those accounts, on the Dixon account and on the Anne O’Brien account, were typed in by you?

—They were.

1995. On whose instructions?

—On the instructions of the Deputy Manager, Mr. Walsh.

1996. You state in your submission: “I am quite certain that these instructions did not emanate from Mr. Fagan but were placed on the account to ensure as great a degree of privacy and security as possible.” How are you quite certain these instructions did not emanate from Mr. Fagan?

—They did not emanate from Mr. Fagan. They came direct from Mr. Walsh.

1997. You would like to qualify that then by saying “I am quite certain that these instructions did not come to me from Mr. Fagan”. You said “emanate”; it is a general term.

—Yes, I believe I got this notation from Mr. Walsh and not from Mr. Fagan. I personally did not get it from Mr. Fagan.

1998. Then your statement “these instructions did not emanate from Mr. Fagan” would not be a correct way of putting it?

—No, I suppose it would not. It is just a technicality now, I imagine, in this case.

1999. Deputy FitzGerald.—It was suggested at one stage that you might have been the person who sent out the cheque book and mandate to whoever they were sent to— it was suggested they were sent to Mr. Fagan. I gathered from Mr. Deacon’s evidence that nobody has any recollection of sending it out?

—No. I have made investigations myself inside, I have questioned all the staff, in fact. At that time I was on that job inside. My handwriting has entered all the relative data to the cheque book.

2000. You have no recollection of doing it yourself? Would it have been normal for you to do it yourself?

—To do what?

2001. To send out the cheque book and mandate when Mr. Walsh wanted them sent out?

—No. I had nothing to do with the sending out of them in this instance.

2002. What would be the normal procedure? Someone gets in touch with Mr. Walsh about opening an account; he gets the names, fills up a mandate and decides to send it off with a cheque book to somebody. What would normally happen? Would Mr. Walsh get a cheque book and physically put it in an envelope himself or would he, verbally or otherwise, talk to some particular member of the bank staff who has control of cheque books and ask him to issue it?

—This is true. He would ask you to get the cheque book for him—that is, for Mr. Walsh.

2003. And issue it himself?

—Yes, he would issue the cheque book to the client. In this case I know this is what did happen, that I definitely did not hand out this cheque book to any particular person other than Mr. Walsh.

2004. Do you recall actually giving it to Mr. Walsh?

—Well, I know that I did not give it to anyone else.

2005. Deputy FitzGerald.—I see.

2006. Deputy H. Gibbons.—You said at some stage that you believed Mr. F handed in the mandate?

—That is true.

2007. What reason have you for saying that?

—When I wrote the notation on the mandate—this was some time ago—I must have had a reason for doing it or else I would not have done it. I am pretty sure that it was Mr. F.

2008. And you wrote it on the mandate?

—That is why I wrote it as there was a lack of witnesses in this case.

2009. You said it is your duty to write in the ledger and that you write this in after the mandate. Who did you get the mandate from on the first occasion? In answer to the Chairman you said it was your duty to write in the names in the ledger.

—When I say “write in the names”, I see it is done. I need not physically do it; I would see this was done correctly.

2010. Somebody else could do it?

—Yes. In this case it was I who typed the names on these accounts.

2011. You told the Chairman you typed it from the mandate?

—This is what I normally would do. This is what is normally done when an account is opened. It is quite difficult to recollect.

2012. What I am trying to get at is that Mr. F would have given the mandate to someone else and then it was given to you and you wrote on it?

—I am not terribly sure about this.

2013. I think you said you did some business both with Mr. F and Captain Kelly, cashing cheques and so on.

—Yes.

2014. Have you any idea at this stage of what the amounts were, the numbers, or anything?

—No, I am afraid I have not. At the time it did not seem important to me.

2015. Deputy Keating.—On the first page of your statement, in the second line of the last paragraph, you said “I came in contact with Mr. F whom I believed to be the person who handed in the completed mandate”. That form of words “whom I believe”, does that mean something different from “whom I remember” as the person who handed in the completed mandate? Perhaps I could ask the question in a more simple way because it was rather a roundabout question. Do you remember Mr. F handing you the completed mandate?

—Not actually handing it to me, but I am quite certain it was Mr. F who handed this mandate in.

2016. You recall some events, as distinct from him handing the mandate to you, which make you absolutely convinced that he was the person who physically brought the mandate to the bank and handed it in?

—On a number of occasions I cashed cheques for Mr. F. I know it is from this mandate that I would have written it up and it must have been the mandate that I got from him.

2017. I am sorry to be roundabout about this, but this is the only point I want to raise. There is a distinction between saying it must have been from him and saying that you remember it was from him. Am I correct in thinking you have no direct recollection of him handing in the mandate?

—If you ask me the date he handed it in I would not be able to tell you.

2018. No, I am not worried about the date.

—I am quite sure he did hand it in.

2019. How do you know? You say “whom I believe to be the person.” You do not believe it because you remember him doing it. How do you actually know that he did it?

—I must have seen him.

2020. Well, can I then ask you this one? The occasion of his handing in the mandate, if he did so, would have been the first occasion he was in the bank. I think this is a reasonable inference because the mandate must have been handed in to start the account. Am I reasoning correctly in this?

—You are, but it is not altogether correct.

2021. All right, but it is substantially so. It would have been right at the beginning. If he cashed cheques over a period of months after that, then you would have got to know him and would have said to yourself “Yes, that is Mr. F,” but how would you have known on what was supposedly, or probably, the first or at most the second, occasion he came into the bank?

—I know his face pretty well.

2022. Did you know his face before those events?

—Well, I mean I watch television and——

2023. I see. This is a line we do not wish to pursue if you will excuse us. I think one can then draw the conclusion that you are, in fact, convinced beyond a doubt when you say “whom I believe” that he was the person who handed in the completed mandate?

—I am.

2024. Deputy MacSharry.—I have just two questions. First, why would you have occasion to help Mr. F cash cheques?

—How I remember it so well is that he had a habit of coming in at about 12.25 p.m. when we were getting ready to go to lunch.

2025. Were you in the cash that day?

—No, I was not.

2026. You did this on numerous occasions for him?

—Twice maybe, between the two gentlemen I mentioned.

2027. Did you ever do it for Captain Kelly?

—I did.

2028. In the same way? At 12.25 p.m.?

Well, roughly yes.

2029. Deputy Nolan.—You said you came into contact with Mr. F and in the last sentence of your submission, on the first page, you said: “I recollect having dealt with him on one or more occasions when he was cashing cheques drawn on the accounts of the branch.” Does this mean that Mr. F drew cheques on the Belfast account, on the Dixon account and the Anne O’Brien account?

—I am not terribly sure about that, but I know that it was in connection with one of the accounts. I could not honestly say which one it was.

2030. Could he have drawn cheques on more than one of the accounts?

—He could have drawn cash. From my recollection he did not write the cheques or his name was not signed to the cheques.

2031. Did he cash the cheques?

—He cashed the cheques.

2032. On more than one of the accounts?

—That I am not sure of, but when you say draw, he definitely did not draw them.

2033. Yes, sorry, I meant did he cash cheques? The other question I would like to ask you, you met Mr. F and Mr., Captain Kelly we will call him now, in your dealings with the three accounts. Did you meet any other person?

—No, not to the best of my knowledge.

2034. These were the only two people——

—These were the only two people——

2035. ——you met as regards lodging or cashing cheques or any other business in connection with the three accounts?

—Yes. That is correct.

2036. Just the two?

—Yes.

2037. Deputy Treacy.—Just one question, Mr. Moore. You state here that you recollect having met Mr. Kelly whom you know now to be Captain James Kelly at the branch and having assisted him?

—That is right, yes.

2038. Would you perhaps kindly elaborate as to the circumstances under which you met him and precisely what the nature of the business was?

—Well, I had seen him in the office with Mr. Walsh and he produced at a later stage he produced cheques to be cashed and the teller—any cheques over maybe £100 would be referred to somebody else to see if there was funds in the accounts to meet the cheques.

2039. How often did you do business of this nature with the Captain, can you recollect?

—Not very often. I might have done it three times.

2040. Had you been assigned any special responsibility in respect of dealing with this particular fund?

—No.

2041. Deputy Tunney.—Mr. Moore, just one question, please. As head ledger keeper in the bank you hold a fairly responsible position?

—Yes, sir.

2042. In the matter of your making certain notes, is there any obligation on you subsequently to see that whatever notes are put there are honoured?

—Well, I suppose there is, but we are quite a big office and a lot of statements now would be sent out by juniors and they may not read the notation on top of the cards.

2043. Surely you are not suggesting that if in the operation of banking, of bank accounts, that it is considered necessary or advisable that certain notes should be put on certain documentation it is then left to whether or not the official dealing with that account is junior or new as to whether the instruction is carried out?

—Most, any, most times when statements or correspondence, statements in particular, are required, I am the person that they ask for but quite often a phone call may come in and the telephonist will take it, who is a member of the staff, will take this message.

2044. But in circumstances where you would have recorded that no correspondence should be sent out, that all inquiries should go to Mr. A. J. Fagan, we know now that that caution was not honoured or obeyed.

—Well, when we say “do not send out statement” it would mean do not post out a statement, which would be more correct as you can see on all the addresses, goodness, Cork Street—I do not know Belfast but it is probably a big street. Stephen’s Green is an area as well and the other address is 2 Lower Baggot Street.

2045. Well then at any stage do you ever have occasion to write down a caution to the effect: “Do not hand out correspondence or hand out documentation.”

—No, we would not have cause for that, not to the best of my recollection anyway.

2046. This refers specifically to not sending out anything by post.

—By post mainly, Oh, yes and only by post. If the client himself comes in and asks for a statement he will get it.

2047. Chairman.—And did a client come in and ask for a statement here?

—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am not terribly sure.

2048. Deputy Briscoe.—Mr. Moore, your recollection is very sharp and good on most of the questions you have been asked, and it does not mean I am going to ask you too many more, but would you by any chance remember who collected the statement?

—I am sorry, Deputy Briscoe, I just have not an idea.

2049. Deputy Briscoe.—You have not an idea at all? Right.

2050. Deputy R. Burke.—In a statement which you made on 1st July, 1970, which we have here you said:

I have no recollection as to who gave me the instructions which appear on the ledger card. It is most probably that it was given to me by one of my superiors.

Since that time has your recollection strengthened? Are you able to be a little more definite, because the same statement is repeated in relation to the Dixon and O’Brien accounts in much the same language?

—Yes, I am sure now who gave me the instruction.

2051. Yes. Now you also stated that on a number of occasions you met Mr. F and Captain James Kelly and that you recollected assisting them in cashing cheques drawn on accounts in the bank and that Mr. F drew on the White/Loughran/Murphy account and Mr. Kelly on the subsidiary accounts? Is this the situation?

—Well, now, I know definitely that Captain Kelly drew on subsidiary accounts.

2052. So your words were that: “It is my belief that Mr. Kelly cashed cheques”.

—Yes, it probably is. It is Captain Kelly cashed cheques on the subsidiary accounts.

2053. Now I do not want to press you too much on this but was there any significance in your statement here that Mr. F drew on the main account and Captain Kelly on the subsidiary ones?

—Why I say this, it is my belief that I am sure that Captain Kelly drew on subsidiary accounts and Mr. F drew on the joint account.

2054. Yes. When you were asked to explain the note introduced by Mr. A. J. Fagan you explained that this did not mean a formal introduction of Anne O’Brien and so on?

—No.

2055. That it was just a way of saying contacts had been made?

—That the account came through Mr. Fagan.

2056. You also stated that on a number of occasions you rendered assistance to these gentlemen, meaning Mr. F and Captain Kelly, and that payment was made in English currency. Earlier one of the witnesses said that where English currency of the amounts mentioned, up to £10,000, were needed it would be necessary to have made previous arrangements?

—It would.

2057. Were these arrangements made through you or through Mr. Walsh or through a higher officer in the bank?

—It would be through a higher officer.

2058. How did you become aware of this? Were you told he was coming to draw?

—Yes. We were given prior notice.

2059. I see. Would you play any part, for example, in arranging with whoever gives this kind of English denomination money out? Can you recollect any occasion on which you made any telephone call or entered into correspondence?

—No, I never made any phone calls or any correspondence in regard to the accounts.

2060. Approximately how much time would elapse between the request to have this kind of money available and the actual calling on the bank?

—One day would be enough, but I am not sure. I think that the phone calls were made to the manager about the larger sums.

2061. Yes. Were you in your capacity as ledger keeper—is that right—made aware that the accounts were overdrawn at any point, or put it the other way, did you discover this fact and relate it to your superiors?

—No. These were, to the best of my knowledge, these were shown and were known to be overdrawn before the cheques were actually cashed.

2062. I see. You are quite categorical in stating that, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Fagan was not involved, sorry, that you had no occasion to contact Mr. Fagan in relation to any of these accounts?

—I am sure of that.

2063. So that the position would be that your superiors found the account was overdrawn and they may have been in touch with him?

—They have. I know for a fact that they have.

2064. This is a very minor point, probably just a slip of the typewriter, but in your statement of the 1st July you said “To my knowledge I never met John White, John Loughran or Roger White”?

—I think that was a typing error because I knew the accounts pretty well.

2065. When the statement was read over to you it probably just slipped?

—Yes.

2066. A question I have asked all the witnesses so far—no female answering the description of Anne O’Brien presented herself at any stage?

—No.

2067. Deputy E. Collins.—Your main responsibility in your capacity as head ledger keeper would have been the maintenance in an up-to-date position of the ledger sheets in relation to accounts?

—Yes, that is true.

2068. At the beginning of these accounts what discussions did you have with Mr. Deacon or Mr. Walsh?

—It was Mr. Walsh I dealt with in all matters relating to these accounts.

2069. Can you recollect the extent of your discussions?

—Everything was in order and all I would have had to do was to take Mr. Walsh’s notations—the notations I have, “no correspondence”, “all inquiries to A. J. Fagan”.

2070. And you did not have a general discussion with him on the operation of the accounts?

—No, there was no need for that.

2071. Why did you print different instructions on the top of each account? On the main account you had the statement “no correspondence to be sent, all inquiries to A. J. Fagan”. On the O’Brien account was “no correspondence whatever, all inquiries to A. J. Fagan”. Why the difference?

—They were written at different times. Presumably, one was written on the 11th November and three days elapsed before the next would have been written.

2072. Did you have a discussion with Mr. Walsh at the commencement of each account?

—I cannot remember. At that stage, they were no different to me than any other accounts.

2073. There was no significance attached to the difference in wording?

—No, that was just a caution more than anything else for our own benefit inside.

2074. Was the mandate from Mr. F which you received handed to you directly?

—I am not sure about this.

2075. It did not come from Mr. Walsh?

—I cannot recollect.

2076. You did not query the fact that the signatures were not witnessed?

—I did not and that was what prompted me to put the notation on the mandate.

2077. Did you query it with Mr. Walsh or with Mr. F?

—No, I do not think so.

2078. On the mandate in relation to the subsidiary accounts, did you print the words “no correspondence” over the O’Brien’s account?

—Yes.

2079. And did you write in “introduced by A. J. Fagan”?

—I did.

2080. Why did you write that in? What was your source of information?

—Mr. Walsh at that stage, I presume, and I think it may have been written on one of the signature cards.

2081. Did the name John Lynch strike you as having any significance?

—Not at the time.

2082. It does now?

—The name John Lynch is a pretty famous name. Other than that it does not mean anything.

2083. What I mean by this really is— was the John Dixen signature witnessed in your presence or where was it witnessed or signed?

—I did not see these cards. They were handed to me completed.

2084. By Mr. Walsh?

—Yes.

2085. What examination would you undertake in relation to cheques, lodgments and accounts in general? We will take cheques first? Would you examine cheques as they come in?

—Yes.

2086. You would examine them?

—Well, whoever are the supervisors on each ledger. They would examine their own cheques for dates, amounts and signatures.

2087. No one brought to your notice discrepancies in relation to the signatures particularly in relation to the O’Brien account?

—We have three specimen signatures and I think every cheque was drawn according to those. All a banker is really interested in is in seeing that they are drawn according to the mandate or the signature card.

2088. Had you any cause to check the signatures at any stage?

—No, I had not.

2089. Nor the lodgments?

—No.

2090. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Walsh or anybody else about the subsidiary account?

—No, I had no reason to talk to him about any of these.

2091. You did not discuss the funding of the subsidiary account from the main account?

—No, so long as it was kept in order, I was clear.

2092. You did not have a general discussion about the subsidiary account in so far as the nature of it was concerned?

—No, so far as I was concerned it was just another account.

2093. You are aware that the statements made by Mr. Fagan and the evidence given by Mr. Walsh and Mr. Deacon differ?

—I am aware.

2094. They differ in relation to instructions, names and so on?

—Yes.

2095. Do you recollect any discussion you had at any stage with Mr. Walsh or Mr. Deacon in which Mr. Fagan’s name would have been mentioned?

—I would not have been interested in that. All I am interested in is the final documentation.

2096. You cannot recollect any mention of it at any stage?

—No. I cannot honestly say that I remember anything about it.

2097. Had you any opinion as to the source of the funds?

—I had an idea of where the money was coming from.

2098. Really. Would you expand on that please?

—I had heard it was Government money.

2099. From whom?

—From our own talk inside about this account and when the heading was noticed —Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress— we knew at that stage that it was Government money.

2100. Mr. Walsh’s recollection is different in so far as he stated he did not attach any significance to the heading and thought that possibly the money was from Bernadette Devlin’s collection in America?

—That is probably his belief but I was always of the belief that it was Government funds being channelled.

2101. Mr. Walsh never discussed this with anyone?

—No, not personally with me anyway.

2102. It was the opinion in the office that there were possibly Government funds involved?

—When I say the office, I probably mean the manager—the younger, junior staff would not know about it.

2103. Only the tellers and people like that?

—They would not know. They are there only to pay out cash and take in lodgments.

2104. What do the letters C/A mean?

—That means that he is a current account holder.

2105. And that is all?

—That is all, yes.

2106. When are charges on account calculated?

—Half-yearly, on 15th June and 15th December.

2107. Would there have been any charge on any of these accounts?

—December, no. There would not have been enough transactions to constitute a charge.

2108. That would be charges in relation to cheques going through the account?

—Exactly, yes.

2109. What does Balance WPU stand for?

—WPU is wrong pick-up. It is a correction made in the books inside.

2110. Where would that have emanated from?

—When one of the posters is posting she may have picked up an incorrect balance. I see that £499 was picked up as £999. That is all that means. It is only a way of correcting an entry that was incorrect.

2111. The overdraft which occurred at the end of November, 21st November, I think, when this came to your notice was anything said about it or did you go to the manager?

—No, as I say, these were created with the manager’s knowledge, I think.

2112. Without mentioning names, if you have that information, are you aware of the identity of George Dixon?

—I am not aware of it.

2113. Did anyone come into the office and operate the George Dixon account who appeared to be familiar to you, without mentioning names?

—You see, the thing is, I may not have seen them. I would not know that they were dealing with that specific account at the time so I could not be at all sure about it.

2114. Or the O’Brien account? No recollection, have you?

—No, I just could not.

2115. Did you have any discussions of a general nature with Captain Kelly?

—No, never, just——

2116. But you did come across him. You had to cash money?

—I did, yes. Well I knew him, as an observation——

2117. How do you mean you knew him?

—Well, I had seen him with Mr. Walsh and——

2118. Deputy E. Collins.—That is all Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore.

2119. Deputy FitzGerald.—In reply to a question by Deputy Collins——

2120. Chairman.—Excuse me. I think you began. I will let you in in a moment. Mr. Moore, I understand there were a number of statements issued in respect of these accounts?

—I am sorry, I did not hear you.

2121. I understand that a number of statements were issued in respect of these accounts?

—There were.

2122. Would these statements be a copy of the ledger sheet?

—They would be a copy of the balances and the items posted. In other words they would not show the errors that are shown on the ledger sheets.

2123. How is it prepared and who prepares it?

—The statement?

2124. Yes?

—You mean the actual noting of the cheques?

2125. The statement that is prepared and sent out. Do you prepare it?

—No, I do not.

2126. Who prepares it?

—In this case it was Mr. Carroll who prepared it.

2127. Do you know what sort of statements were issued in respect of these accounts in January and February?

—I do not quite follow you, Mr. Chairman.

2128. You have agreed that there were statements sent out?

—I have agreed, yes.

2129. You do not know the nature of these statements?

—The nature?

2130. Yes. What did they show and what were they?

—They showed the balances on the accounts.

2131. You saw them, did you?

—No, but this is the way the bank is run. I am sorry. I am not terribly clear on what you mean by that, Mr. Chairman.

2132. They were the usual statements?

—They were the usual, yes.

2133. And you do not know to whom they were issued?

—No, I do not know who they were issued to.

2134. You do know that they were issued?

—I do, yes. They have been initialled.

2135. When the first statements went out in January, how soon did you find out after that?

—I was not terribly interested, quite honestly, about the one in January or even the one in March because I did not know that they had gone out for a start. We have quite a number of accounts and to try to keep a note of all these is—

2136. But they were statements issued, in opposition, so to speak, to the instruction at the head of your ledger card. Would that not have occasioned you to take an interest in them?

—The only answer I can give to that is that maybe Mr. Fagan, I am only saying “maybe” Mr. Fagan rang up and requested these statements and said then he would call for them. This is the only answer I can give to this. That would be in order.

2137. You think that otherwise they could not go out?

—They could not be posted out.

2138. Without a special request in view of the instruction on the head of the ledger card, typed in by you, do you say the statement could not go out unless somebody like Mr. Fagan specifically requested it?

—Should not rather than could not.

2139. But it did go out?

—It did go out, yes.

2140. Chairman.—Thank you very much. Now, Deputy FitzGerald.

2141. Deputy FitzGerald.—My apologies, Chairman. When Deputy Collins was questioning you about the notations at the top of the accounts you explained the difference between them on the grounds that the accounts were opened on different dates but, in fact, two of the accounts were opened on 14th November?

—Yes.

2142. And they were, in fact, opened as far as we can make out, by the same person at the same time but there is a fairly significant difference in what is at the top. In one case it is: “Care. No correspondence. Introduced by A. J. Fagan, Account Holder” and in the other it is: “No correspondence whatever. All inquiries to A. J. Fagan.” That may be pure chance but if you are getting two accounts and the same instructions relating to them and they both come together at the same time the ordinary thing to do would be, unless there was some reason to the contrary, to put the same thing at the top of the two?

—Yes, that is true.

2143. You have no recollection of any reason for suggesting that one should have a firmer adjuration than the other?

—No, there was no intention of this on it. I see here that these signature cards were apparently sent in on two different dates. I am sorry about that. I did not realise that when I was talking to you.

2144. But both accounts were opened the same day?

—That is so, but the signature cards were not received on the same date.

2145. Are you sure that you are talking about the date of receipt? We know they were filled up in different circumstances, one was brought into the bank and the other was, I think, filled up in the bank but I have understood that they both were handed in at the same time. Is that wrong? What makes you think they were handed in at different times?

—There is a date, 14th of the 11th, on Anne O’Brien’s and 17th of the 11th on George Dixon’s, on the signature cards.

2146. In fact, in these statements both accounts are marked as opened on the 14th and both have cheque books issued on the 17th? There is no difference in that respect?

—No, no.

2147. Can you explain how this might have happened? The account could not have been opened until you had a name; therefore, does that imply the names must have been given on the 14th November, but in at least one case you did not receive the accounts until three days later?

—Well, I see that it was a lodgment opened on the 14th—the Anne O’Brien— on which the name and address would have been. These were lodgments received from both of them.

2148. But these dates on the signature cards, are they dates entered by the bank or entered by the person who was bringing them in?

—Yes. One was entered by Mr. Walsh and the other is entered by Mr. Deacon.

2149. The dates?

—Yes.

2150. And that suggests to you that they were actually brought in on different occasions?

—Well, it does—certainly it does.

2151. I see. That would explain more easily the differences?

—Actually the notations are not mentioned other than for our own benefit inside.

2152. I appreciate that but, as I said earlier, in the ordinary way if they actually came at the same moment from the same person they are usually in the same form, unless there is some reason. If they had come in on different days that does explain why the wording is different?

—It could explain it, yes.

2153. Deputy Nolan.—Mr. Chairman, could I see the signature cards, please?

(Cards produced.)

2154. Deputy FitzGerald.—Now if you look at the statements again, please, different type is used in relation to them. Actually the type in the Anne O’Brien account, the name “Anne O’Brien” is in a certain type?

—That is right.

2155. A special type of printing associated with the accounts?

—That is right.

2156. I do not know what machine it is done on but the address is done in ordinary typescript underneath?

—Yes. I can explain that quite easily. The account is, first of all, opened in the name of Anne O’Brien and, after that, the person operating that machine will look for the addresses from the signature cards.

2157. If you look at the other one— Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress—it is in this rather special black type?

—Yes. That is the machine again.

2158. And the names then are typed in above and there is this rather odd wording under “Relief Committee”—“for” crossed out and then underneath “of”?

—That is when the mandate came in headed in this fashion.

2159. In what fashion?

—In the fashion John White, John Loughran and Roger Murphy all of Cooke Street, Belfast Relief Committee of Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress.

2160. What I am wondering is does the fact that the title—“Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress”—was printed first in black type and the other names are in typescript, including Cooke Street, Belfast, does that imply you opened the account first in the name of “Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress” and at some later time the names came in?

—Yes, it certainly looks like that and from our accounts opened book—of which we have a copy here; we brought this—it is opened in the name of White, Loughran and Murphy, Relief Committee of Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress.

2161. The very first time it was opened was in these names?

—I think so but I would not be terribly sure, but it is entered in our accounts opened book in that form.

2162. And it was opened on the 11th November?

—It was opened on the 11th November.

2163. In two of these accounts there are figures entered in the righthand margin where you have a column headed “Days” —I am talking of Dixon and the Belfast Fund—and then there is interest, debit, credit. Is there any significance attaching to these mysterious figures in the margin?

—This is a cute way of charging a person interest on overdraft on a day-to-day basis. You will notice the eight there relates from the 12th February to the 20th February, the length of time it was overdrawn.

2164. These are the periods it was overdrawn?

—Yes.

2165. I understand. Finally, this issue of the statement to somebody, you said earlier it was normal to issue a statement to a client?

—Yes.

2166. And that certainly the heading at the top, the notation—no correspondence to be sent out, do not send out statement— does not necessarily mean that, if a client walks in he should not be given a statement?

—That is true.

2167. That seems entirely reasonable, but you did say it was the client who should get the statement. How unusual, or how reprehensible, would you regard it to issue a statement to someone who was not the client?

—Well, all inquiries to A. J. Fagan and, as we had no knowledge who Dixon, O’Brien and the the other three persons were, Mr. Fagan was the obvious man to give these things to.

2168. I can quite see that, but supposing a statement was given to someone else, does that surprise you?

—It would quite frankly.

2169. Disturb you?

—To any extent, yes, but Mr. Fagan could also ring up and say Mr. X will call in for the statement, kindly have it ready for him when he calls. This quite often happens.

2170. I noticed that although, in fact, in discussion and evidence earlier today, there seemed to be some agreement that it might have been Captain Kelly who called for the statements, in fact you immediately assumed there it would have been Mr. Fagan. Is there any reason for that?

—This is why the notation was put up and that it was only Mr. Fagan we would deal with in this case.

2171. And you would therefore presume, although it is only presumption——

—It is only presumption.

2172. ——that, if the statements were issued, they would only have been issued to Mr. Fagan?

—This is my presumption, yes.

2173. And it would be unusual certainly for them to give it to anybody else?

—Yes—oh, it would.

2174. Unusual but not impossible?

—Well, not impossible if he had sent an agent to collect it for him.

2175. But if he had not sent an agent and some other person looked for the account?

—It should not happen, but I am sure human error could. It must have happened if Mr. Fagan claims he did not receive it.

2176. Deputy H. Gibbons.—You referred there in a reply to Deputy FitzGerald to the account opened book. Is this another document as distinct from the ledger?

—It is. It is a record for our accounts; as we open accounts they are entered in an accounts opened book.

2177. Then, when Mr. Fagan on the first occasion got in touch with Mr. Walsh, is this the first entry that would be made of this account?

—In this book?

2178. Yes?

—Well——

2179. Or, to put the question in a different way, in relation to the opening of an account, if somebody rings up on the phone that they wish to open an account for a club——

—Yes?

2180. —could you give me the chronological order used in this accounts opened book?

—Well, it is entered in the accounts opened book on the date on which the account is opened.

2181. Then the heading of that, would that be taken from the ledger or from the mandate?

—It is normally taken from the mandate.

2182. What does the accounts book copy then?

—This is the new accounts book?

2183. Yes?

—That normally copies the mandate. You see, usually you get the mandate first or the names of the account from somebody. You need not necessarily have the mandate at the time of opening.

2184. Suppose you were on the phone and someone announced he wishes to open a new account—

—Yes?

2185. —would you not ask for the accounts opened book and write it in?

—No; not until it actually is opened in the office it will not be entered in this book.

2186. I think both you and Mr. Fagan agree that, if these statements were given out, they were probably given out in error by somebody on your staff?

—Yes.

2187. A hypothetical question, dangerous and perhaps unfair: you were aware that Captain Kelly was dealing in these accounts?

—I was aware of him dealing in Anne O’Brien and George Dixon.

2188. If he called to you and asked for statements do you think would you have given them to him? This may be unfair?

—I would have given them to him provided I had been asked by Mr. Fagan.

2189. Deputy Keating.—Is the “accounts opened” book available here?

—It is.

2190. I wonder would it be possible for it to be passed to me? Excuse me for a moment while I look at this. Do you know without my showing it to you whose handwriting this is in?

—I do. It is in my handwriting.

2191. I notice again, and perhaps it is a little difficult for you without having it in front of you, but there is a bracket after “White, Loughran and Murphy, Committee for the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress”. There is also a bracket in the column marked “date opened” where you have the same date entered twice but on different occasions with different ink.

—I may have been going through the book again later and I brought down the date so as not to confuse it, for my own benefit.

2192. In this “Accounts Opened” book the dates are in strict sequence but I do not see Ann OBrien?

—You will find it there in another portion of the book.

2193. Is it marked? Yes, I am sorry for the delays, Mr. Chairman. Under address for the “Dixon, George”—it says in pencil and it is the only pencil entry on the page and it says “introduced by Mr. A. J. Fagan.” Is there any reason why that might have been in pencil?

—No reason. I meant to rub it out probably later on.

2194. Why would you want to rub it out?

—I am not terribly sure but I think I did not have an address in at that stage.

2195. There is no address in now at this stage.

—I should have put the address in.

2196. It says above “Care of 2 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin.” The “introduced by Mr. Fagan” is not, in fact, rubbed out. Perhaps I might pass this around. Is that acceptable to the source of it? We will leave that point for a moment. These things which have got signatures on them, what are they properly called?

—That is a signature card.

2197. I understand that the signature card for Ann O’Brien is here at the Committee meeting?

—It is, yes.

2198. I think on the back of it there is a piece of paper stapled on with two signatures on it, Ann O’Brien each time only the spelling is the normal spelling?

—Yes.

2199. If you look at the front you will see “EIN” and the two on the back are “IEN”?

—Yes.

2200. Would you have any idea where these two signatures stapled on the back came from?

—I know the three came on the same piece of paper.

2201. When the signature card was returned there were three specimens of signatures on it?

—There were.

2202. In each case it is “Ann” with no final “E” but in one case it is “EIN” and in the other cases it is “IEN” in the O’Brien?

—That is true.

2203. This is a rather odd practice. Whoever sent you back the signature card was indicating that this Ann O’Brien was in the habit of signing in two different ways?

—You could draw this inference from it.

2204. Is there any other inference that springs to your mind?

—In fact, if you look at the BREIN you could find it was BREN.

2205. There may be a dot over the “I”. I am not sure whether that is a mark on the photostat. I have not the original. Whoever returned the signature card was indicating to you that for a person who we now think does not exist at all there were two different forms of signatures given. You are quite sure all these three signatures emanated from the same source at the same time, namely at the time the signature card was returned? The two signatures on the back came with the signature card. Is that correct?

—Yes. They did.

2206. From whoever returned it?

—Yes, from whoever returned it.

2207. I am left with the comment “Curiouser and Curiouser”.

2208. Deputy Tunney.—Have you any reason why the cards should not have been signed?

—Probably because Ann O’Brien may not have been available at the time and she may have signed on a piece of paper the three signatures and that would have been acceptable to us so long as the signature on the cheque corresponded with the signature on the paper.

2209. If she was not available to sign the card she was not available to sign the paper?

—It is possible that the person who went to her had not got the card.

2210. That is possibly it. Finally is there anything in your ledger to indicate the affinity between these three accounts? That two are subsidiary to the main account?

—The only connection I can see between them is that the three of them were introduced by Mr. Fagan.

2211. On your ledger do you have any note indicating the relationship?

—Cross-reference?

2212. Yes?

—No, not on the ledger cards.

2213. How then would you know they were related?

—I did not actually say that, I think, or I did not mean to, if I did, I meant to say that the only corelation between them was that Mr. Fagan introduced the three accounts.

2214. Would you be relying on your memory to tell you that or would you have a note in your ledger?

—I have it noted on the ledger card and I see it is noted on Ann O’Brien’s signature card here. We know that he brought the joint account. He was instrumental in getting that. It is also on the George Dixon account.

2215. That is sufficient to indicate the relationship?

—No, I am only giving you a reason why I think they could be related—but Mr. Fagan introduced three accounts and this is one reason how they could be related.

2216. Deputy Briscoe.—You may have discussed this already. I think, for the record, in regard to statements being handed to technically the wrong person—in other words you were asked if you were there would you have handed the statements to Captain Kelly and you said “no”, not unless Mr. Fagan told me.” I think it is fair to say you, operating as a conscientious person—this is your training—but, in fact, anybody could be forgiven for handing over the statements to Captain Kelly since he was the person who was operating the accounts?

—If this was handed out by a junior he would not have known Captain Kelly or she would not have known Captain Kelly.

2217. We do not seem to be able to trace who handed it over?

—I have asked everybody in the office.

2218. We know they were handed over. If somebody realised the error in handing over to Captain Kelly it is quite possible that they might not wish to say that they handed over, so there is no proof that they must have definitely gone to Mr. Fagan?

—No, I am not saying it went to Mr. Fagan.

2219. The note in the “Accounts Opened” book or the ledger, whatever you call it, which went around said “introduced by Mr. Fagan” on the George Dixon account, in pencil. Was it on the George Dixon account?

—Yes.

2220. I just see it here on the Ann O’Brien one. Since Captain Kelly was originally introduced by Mr. Fagan and Mr. Fagan operated the subsidiary accounts, which is known and was given the signature cards and brought them back, pending qualification, which no one apparently did, you put in in pencil, temporarily as it were “introduced by Mr. Fagan”?

—This is what it seems.

2221. So, in other words, because Captain Kelly was not at that stage, if you like, an authority to open an account on behalf of anyone?

—No.

2222. Would that be the reason why?

—That is it—well, I would imagine so.

2223. All right. I just wanted that for the record.

—Yes, it is clearly understood.

2224. Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Moore. We adjourn now until 10 o’clock tomorrow.

The Committee adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 21st January, 1971.