| 16.5°C Dublin

Developer who owes €86m to NAMA says €300k cheque to wife was ‘mistake’


Michael Daly

Michael Daly

Michael Daly

A CHEQUE for €300,000 paid to the wife of Limerick developer Michael Daly from funds that should have gone toward the repayment of loans to Anglo Irish Bank was “a mistake”, the High Court has been told.

Mr Daly, a qualified chartered accountant from North Circular Road, Limerick, denied he had represented the money given to his wife Dymphna Daly in April 2009 was a payment to a builder.

He is before the court to answer questions from NAMA, which is pursuing him over an €86m judgment made against him in December 2010, about his financial affairs.

He had consented to the judgment, which arose from unpaid loans of €165 million advanced by Anglo Irish Bank to three companies in the Fordmount property group, and two partnerships, to buy property in Limerick city and county.

Under personal guarantees, the bank alleged Mr Daly was liable for €86 million while four solicitors each had a €21 million liability.

NAMA has sought to address various concerns including about the transfer of his share in his family home to his wife "for natural love and affection", the sale for €2 of shares in German companies previously given a value of €11 million and the reconciliation of his current income and expenditure.

Mr Daly had complained NAMA’s attitude was unreasonable as he had disclosed all documents available to him and fully co-operated.

Asked by Brian Kennedy SC for NAMA,  he agreed the €300,000 paid to his wife had been “extracted” from German property investments but should have been paid to Anglo toward two loans which were in arrears.

Mr Kennedy said the money was “channelled through” Fordmount and there would have been no need to do that if it had been a legitimate payment.

Asked if he had represented the payment to his wife as a payment to a builder at a meeting with the bank, Mr Daly responded:  “Absolutely not”.

He said the money was owed to his wife and he was “not proud of it”, but he got some money back for her.

He denied it was to benefit himself as well.

Asked by Mr Justice Peter Kelly how he would describe the transaction, he said he regarded it as a mistake.

 The case continues on Friday.

Online Editors