Dunne claims Nama on ‘fishing expedition’ over US properties

Lawyers for Sean Dunne and his wife Gayle Killilea yesterday insisted that three US properties which are the subject of a Nama investigation were bought using her own money and not as a result of an asset transfer.

It is Nama’s assertion that a “fraudulent transfer” of funds occurred after Mr Dunne was declared insolvent but the developer’s lawyers told a judge at the Stamford Superior Court in Connecticut yesterday that there was no proof that this was the case.

“They’re on a fishing expedition,” Mr Dunne’s lawyer Peter Nolin told reporters in between hearings at the court.

“The only transfer that they have alleged that took place is a transfer in Switzerland which they cannot prove was fraudulent. It’s been disclosed to them that it was not fraudulent. They have the facts. They keep ignoring those facts.

“There’s a major jurisdictional issue which they keep talking about which is why does a Connecticut court have jurisdiction over a transfer between two Irish nationals living in Switzerland involving banks that are based in Ireland.”

In July, the National Asset Loan Management company had sought a restraining order to freeze the assets of the couple and their lawyers were back in Connecticut yesterday with attorney Thomas Rechen acting on behalf of Nama.

Meanwhile, Phillip D Russell, who was acting on behalf of Ms Killilea Dunne, told reporters that his client would need more evidence from Nama in order to proceed.

“I know they’ve been married a lot longer than he has been insolvent,” he said. “I know I’ve been married 26 years and every day of my life I make a transfer of assets of one form or another to my wife. I’m happy to do it and it doesn’t violate any law.

“What’s missing from this case is any evidence whatsoever that transfers occurred from Mr Dunne to Mrs Dunne after Mr Dunne became insolvent. Period.

“We have been pressing Nama to tell us the specific date on which it is that they allege that Mr Dunne either became insolvent or knew what day he was likely to be insolvent.

“There’s nothing fraudulent, there’s nothing improper, there’s nothing sinister about giving things to your wife unless you’re doing it to beat the creditors.

“Many of the transactions that they are alluding to are transactions that occurred while banks in Ireland were still extending credit to Mr Dunne.

“All we’ve done with all this paperwork is we’ve drawn a line and we’ve said give us the start date of this alleged insolvency because you can’t just go back to the day they met and look at the first time he bought her an ice cream sundae and go follow it from there.”

At the time of going to press, an afternoon hearing due to take place in front of Judge Douglas Mintz had to begin.