‘Less than truthful’ Lawlor faces fourth jail term

THE prospect of a fourth term in jail is looming large for Liam Lawlor after the Planning Tribunal repeatedly accused him yesterday of being “less than truthful” about his knowledge of a Czech property company called Zatecka.

The former Fianna Fáil TD’s hopes of avoiding having his case referred back to the High Court for failing to co-operate with the inquiry appeared to fade as the three-member tribunal claimed he was continuing to provide information about his dealings with Zatecka which he knew to be untrue.

He was also criticised for “a legion of omissions” in his discovery of documents to the inquiry’s legal team.

The former Dublin West TD is due to return to give evidence at Dublin Castle on Tuesday, after which the tribunal may decide to initiate further legal proceedings over his non-compliance with court orders. He also faces the separate risk of a prosecution for perjury.

At yesterday’s hearing, which was dominated by bad-tempered exchanges, Mr Lawlor was challenged frequently for creating “a totally false impression” of his Zatecka connections in sworn statements to the inquiry over the past two years.

Among the accusations by the tribunal are that:

lMr Lawlor forged an invoice using notepaper from a London legal firm to disguise a stg£117,500 under-the-counter payment from the sale of his land in Lucan three years ago.

lThe former TD tried to distance himself from Zatecka to avoid providing company documentation to the tribunal.

lHe attempted to conceal that he was instrumental in incorporating Zatecka.

lHe denied receiving profits from Zatecka when he had been paid £288,000 in “out-of-pocket expenses”, as well as spending £64,000 on the company’s credit card.

lHe used a Jersey solicitor, Nicholas Morgan, as a screen to hide his own control and beneficial interest in Zatecka.

lThe retired politician attempted to “asset strip” the company of over £275,000 by winding it up and transferring its assets to bank accounts in Switzerland and Liechtenstein before it had paid all its debts.

However, Mr Lawlor angrily rejected such claims, especially any suggestion that he attempted to conceal his true role in Zatecka from the inquiry’s legal team. He insisted he had set out “in black and white” that he had a relationship with the company through a profit-sharing arrangement.

However, Judge Gerald Keys pointed out that the witness could have simply stated “in plain English” that he was responsible for setting up the Zatecka.

“You distanced yourself from Zatecka,” observed Judge Keys. “Rubbish,” Mr Lawlor roared back.

The tribunal is examining the Czech company, which was ostensibly set up as a vehicle for Mr Lawlor’s business interests in Prague, because funds from a property deal in Dublin passed through one of Zatecka’s bank accounts, before being returned to Ireland.

Tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon has already observed that the transaction seemed to constitute a form of money-laundering.

At one stage, Mr Lawlor pleaded that he had co-operated fully at all times with the tribunal. “What more could I do?” he asked.

“Tell the truth,” replied tribunal barrister Des O’Neill.