Former solicitor Michael Lynn has rejected a suggestion by prosecuting counsel in his multi-million euro theft trial that it is implausible that bank employees were part of a “conspiracy to ignore normal lending practice” in relation to his borrowings.
Mr Lynn (55) of Millbrook Court, Redcross, Co Wicklow is on trial accused of the theft of around €27 million from seven financial institutions. He has pleaded not guilty to 21 counts of theft in Dublin between October 23rd 2006 and April 20th 2007.
It is the prosecution’s case that Mr Lynn obtained multiple mortgages on the same properties, in a situation where banks were unaware that other institutions were also providing finance.
The financial institutions involved are Bank of Ireland, National Irish Bank, Irish Life and Permanent, Ulster Bank, ACC Bank, Bank of Scotland Ireland, and Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS).
Karl Finnegan SC, prosecuting, put it to Mr Lynn during cross-examination on Thursday that it is “implausible” that the bank employees who had given evidence during the trial along with other bank staff were involved in a “conspiracy to ignore normal lending practice” in terms of lending to him, which Mr Lynn rejected.
He then suggested that Mr Lynn first gave an account of secret deals with bankers when giving evidence during the last trial.
'Secret deal'
Mr Lynn disputed this. He said he had a “secret deal” with former INBS CEO Michael Fingleton and “off-the-book understandings” with other banks.
Mr Lynn agreed that he told the first trial that the “wrong bankers” had been called to give evidence and also gave a list of people he said were aware of the “off-the-book understandings”.
Mr Finnegan noted that the bank employees who gave evidence during this trial have denied having any knowledge of off-the-book understandings and where relevant, the allegations made by Mr Lynn against them personally.
“There isn’t one banker who has come in to explain what happened. I’m not surprised by that. I’m disappointed they couldn’t have told the truth,” Mr Lynn said.
Mr Finnegan noted that Mr Fingleton was not present as he said it was “well-known” he had been unable to attend his own legal dealings before the courts for health reasons.
Mr Finnegan suggested to Mr Lynn that a memo of understanding he claims to have signed with Mr Fingleton in 2006 does not exist. Mr Lynn rejected this, saying he didn't receive a copy and has been unable to obtain one.
Mr Lynn agreed he was advised by Mr Fingleton in 2008 to leave the jurisdiction for a year or two.
“Mr Fingleton was a significant powerhouse in Irish business at that time... he was a significant person in my life and was deeply concerned if I went and gave certain evidence that it would affect him.”
Mr Lynn said “No one would have believed him,” if he told them in the late 2000s about his arrangements with the banks.
Bank employees
Mr Finnegan suggested that Mr Lynn's position is that the bank employees who gave evidence are lying. Mr Lynn agreed.
Prosecuting counsel then put it to him that: “The lies told in this courtroom have been by you,” which Lynn also rejected.
He contended that Mr Lynn was “prepared to blame anybody else” and had “named numerous names, maligned their characters and integrity to save your skin”.
Mr Lynn said he had tried to put forward his defence. “You have accused me of stealing from banks where there is a history of receiving money and repaying it in a certain way.”
Mr Finnegan suggested to Mr Lynn that the case all boiled down to “what the banks believed and what you led the banks to believe”. Mr Lynn denied this.
Overseas property
Mr Finnegan said to Mr Lynn that it didn’t matter “one jot” whether or not he believed his overseas property developments were going to repay the loans in question since the case against him is that “He misled the banks.”
“I didn’t deceive the banks. They were fully aware of the purpose for which the money would be used and they consented,” said Lynn.
Mr Finnegan suggested Mr Lynn “used and abused” his good relationship with the banks, his standing as a solicitor as he was “desperate to get money abroad, where you could eventually make your millions”.
Mr Lynn rejected this and re-iterated his direct evidence that he had consent from the banks to take out mortgages and use the money overseas.
Mr Finnegan asked Mr Lynn about the decision to expand his development business abroad and asked whether “greed got the better of you?”
While Mr Lynn agreed he got greedy, he continued: “I would say all of us - including bankers - were carried on a wave of property speculation. I wasn’t alone. None of us thought property would go down.”
On Thursday, Mr Lynn told his defence counsel Paul Comiskey O'Keeffe BL that he intended at the time to repay the entire €27 million in loans from property development abroad, its profits and the sale of commercial assets within one or two years.
Mr Lynn said he couldn't use his foreign assets as security for these loans as the “only way Irish banks could fund me was through undertaking only mortgages.”
Mr Lynn said he had the permission and consent of the banks. “I admit I’m many things and let myself down in many ways but I’m not a thief. I had no intention to deceive or steal money from any banks.”
During re-examination, Mr Comiskey O'Keeffe put it to Lynn that there were more practical consequences in case of a default for a high-net-worth individual, which his client agreed with.
Mr Lynn also said he had had given an interview in 2009 to a journalist in which he outlined the defence he has put forward during the trial.
The trial continues before Judge Martin Nolan and a jury.
