Jail threat still stands over Quinns

BANKRUPT businessman Seán Quinn, his son Seán, and nephew Peter have been given three weeks by a High Court judge to comply with orders aimed at reversing a “conspiracy” to move assets in the Quinn international property group beyond the reach of the former Anglo Irish Bank.

But the threat of jail still stands over the one-time business supremo, his son and nephew as Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne yesterday indicated she will consider punitive measures if they fail to follow the court orders.

The judge, who last Tuesday found the three guilty of contempt of court orders restraining the stripping of multimillion assets in the international property group, warned she would “not sit idly by” and allow the court’s orders be breached via an “impermissible” asset-stripping conspiracy. She would not disagree with the bank’s description of the contempt as “flagrant” and was disappointed there was no acknowledgment by the three, “even at this stage”, of the “great wrongdoing” involved.

She was “mesmerised” by arguments on behalf of the three the bank was not entitled to several coercive orders on grounds it had not, in its original contempt motion, alleged the wider number of asset-stripping activities now alleged. Those activities only emerged from evidence during the contempt hearing and it was quite clear other steps were taken outside of the specific contempts alleged, she said.

This was “of grave disquiet” and she was satisfied all three were involved in a conspiracy to deprive Anglo of access to assets in circumstances where they admitted the bank was owed €455m while disputing its claim for a further €2.3bn.

Seán Quinn, his son Seán Jr, and nephew Peter Quinn sat impassively in the packed courtroom as the judge ruled.

The judge has given the three until July 20 to comply with a large number of coercive orders. Refusing an application by their counsel, Bill Shipsey SC, for more time, she said the matter had to be addressed very urgently and she was anxious nothing should happen “that should not happen”.

She also refused to grant a stay on the orders or on her findings of contempt pending any possible appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mr Shipsey argued committal to prison was “a last resort” and the only orders that could be made were ones giving the three an opportunity to purge their contempt in relation to the three specific contempt findings. Counsel indicated the Quinns were considering an appeal against the contempt findings.

Paul Gallagher SC, for the bank, said its primary aim was to protect the assets in the international property group via the coercive orders sought but the court also had discretion, given the “flagrant” contempt here and the response of the three, to impose whatever sanction it deemed appropriate.

The contempt was “so blatant, deliberate, and extensive” in scale that the court might feel some punitive element was also required, he said.

The bank remained very concerned about the international property group assets and still had been given no information about what was happening to $35m rental income from properties in the group.

The judge ruled the bank was entitled to a range of coercive orders, including orders requiring the three to disclose all their assets held directly or indirectly worldwide and appointing a receiver over those assets, apart from family homes and jointly held accounts.

The three were also ordered to disclose all documents relating to work carried out for them by an international law firm, Senat Legal Consultancy, including all documents related to all off-shore or other companies purchased or controlled by Senat in connection with international property group companies. They must also disclose rental payments related to international property group companies and all directors and other agents of the companies.

They must also resign from international property group companies and withdraw any legal actions aimed at removing assets of those companies.

The judge made the rulings the three engaged in a “complex, complicated and no doubt costly” series of steps designed to put assets beyond the reach of the bank in “a blatant, dishonest and deceitful manner”. She found contempt of orders made in June and July 2011 by Mr Justice Frank Clarke restraining dissipation of assets in the IPG valued at up to €500m.