Quinn withdrew €16k on day of order

Colette Quinn, a daughter of jailed businessman Seán Quinn, withdrew €16,000 from the accounts of a Russian company on the day a court order was sought to freeze the assets of some members of the family below €50m, the Commercial Court was told yesterday.

The withdrawals were made on Jun 14, the day Irish Bank Resolution Corporation applied for orders freezing their accounts, the court heard. Reporting restrictions applied on that application until after the hearing concluded and the making of the orders freezing the accounts below €50m save for living expenses of €2,000 each.

The €16,000 appeared to have been taken out via multiple withdrawals from ATMs in Cavan, said Shane Murphy SC, for IBRC.

The bank learned of the withdrawals from information provided by the Quinns, it was stated.

Mr Murphy yesterday applied to Mr Justice Peter Kelly to allow the bank cross-examine the Quinn children and three of their spouses concerning their assets and accounts. The hearing continues today.

The bank says full disclosure concerning the defendants’ assets and accounts has not been made and believes a court cross-examination is needed to get the information to protect assets valued at up to €430m in the family’s international property group (IPG).

In an affidavit, Richard Woodhouse of IBRC said that among the bank’s concerns were cash-extraction mechanisms including using firms where it was not possible to discern ownership from publicly available information. About €16.5m was extracted that way from 2011 to Aug 2012, he said.

The respondents deny the bank’s claims they remain in control of IPG companies and insist they do not know the whereabouts of rental incomes from those firms. They also deny claims their daily expenses were paid by companies in the IPG.

Martin Hayden SC, for the Quinns, argued orders should not be made for cross-examination when the main action by the Quinns against the bank has not yet opened in which they dispute the bank’s entitlement to any security over the assets of their companies on grounds it allegedly advanced illegal loans.

His clients cannot be treated the same as specific allegations made against some of them were not made against others, counsel said. The bank had failed to identify what each individual was in breach of or how they had not complied with their obligations, he said.