Trial hears that there was potential opportunity from former solicitor Michael Lynn’s property developments abroad

By Isabel Hayes

There was potential opportunity from former solicitor Michael Lynn’s property developments abroad, a former Ulster Bank worker has told his multi-million euro theft trial.

But that was not the reason Mr Lynn was given a €3.65 million loan in 2007, Stephen McCarthy, former Ulster Bank relationship manager, told Dublin Circuit Criminal Court yesterday.

Mr Lynn (55), of Millbrook Court, Redcross, Co Wicklow is on trial accused of the theft of around €27 million from seven financial institutions.

He has pleaded not guilty to 21 counts of theft in Dublin between October 23, 2006 and April 20, 2007.

It is the prosecution’s case that Mr Lynn obtained multiple mortgages on the same properties, in a situation where banks were unaware that other institutions were also providing finance.

The financial institutions involved are Bank of Ireland, National Irish Bank (later known as Danske Bank), Irish Life and Permanent, Ulster Bank, ACC Bank, Bank of Scotland Ireland and Irish Nationwide Building Society.

Giving evidence yesterday, Mr McCarthy told Karl Finnegan SC, prosecuting, that he was involved in a €3.65 million loan application from Mr Lynn relating to the purchase of 11 residential investment properties in Dublin.

Mr McCarthy told the court he met Mr Lynn on one occasion in his office in Blanchardstown around September 2006.

He said the meeting “sticks out in his mind” because they met for a considerable length of time and, at the end, he said Mr Lynn said “one final thing” before asking if his solicitor’s firm could provide the undertaking to the bank.

This was “a very unusual request”, Mr McCarthy said.

He said he raised the request in the application to the bank and they “acquiesced on the basis that a different partner to (Michael Lynn) would provide the undertaking”.

Mr Finnegan brought Mr McCarthy through evidence Mr Lynn previously gave about him, including that around September or October 2007, after Mr Lynn had got into difficulties, he said he met Mr McCarthy who told him: “I’m not going to agree we allowed this flexible lending, so you’re on your own”.

“It was clear to me, I’d be left holding the baby,” the court heard Mr Lynn previously said.

In response, Mr McCarthy said he had a telephone call around this time with Mr Lynn after the bank asked him to follow up on getting the first legal charge registered.

He said Mr Lynn told him this would be “actioned” and that he took this to mean “that the legal charge would be secured and registered”.

Mr McCarthy told the court: “I don’t know what he means about flexible lending”.

In relation to comments by Mr Lynn that there was a “dual approach” to lending, Mr McCarthy said he took that to mean that there was underhand or side arrangements with the bank.

“Absolutely not,” he said in response to this suggestion

Under cross-examination from defence counsel, Paul Comiskey O’Keeffe BL, Mr McCarthy said he was not aware of any information being withheld by the bank from gardaí and was not aware of enquiries from the financial regulator in relation to the loans.

Mr McCarthy was brought through a background statement he prepared on Mr Lynn after their meeting, which included information on his property developments abroad in Portugal and the profit per unit.

Mr Comiskey O’Keeffe said these details were “completely excessive”.

Mr McCarthy said it was necessary to include information on Mr Lynn’s other investments as the bank would want to know where his other income was coming from.

“That’s the reason it’s included,” he said.

The court was shown documentation which referred to Mr Lynn’s plans to build circa 5,000 units around Europe with a sales value of €55 million.

The witness said he had never seen the document before and prosecution counsel said it was dated eight months later.

Mr Comiskey O’Keeffe put it to Mr McCarthy that he and his bank were interested in the €55 million “that would come from your relationship with Michael Lynn”.

“Obviously potentially there would be opportunity from it, but that was not the focus of this application,” Mr McCarthy replied.

He later added it was not the reason the bank gave Mr Lynn money for the 11 apartments.

Judge Martin Nolan intervened at one point to point out to Mr Comiskey O’Keeffe: “Your client told him all about that” and that Mr McCarthy was “not the developer”.

“He seems to be the quantity surveyor,” Mr Comiskey O’Keeffe replied.

Earlier, Michael O’Malley, former senior legal adviser for National Irish Bank gave evidence.

He told the trial that in February 2007, he was made aware that the bank was making certain lending to Mr Lynn but that the undertaking would be furnished by Michael Lynn & Co solicitors.

Mr O’Malley agreed with prosecuting counsel that he had some concerns about this, as it was a “conflict of interest”.

He said that as a result, he rang Mr Lynn to discuss the matter.

Mr O’Malley said Mr Lynn told him that he had ceased to practise in Michael Lynn & Co and the practice had been taken over by solicitor Fiona McAleenan.

“He named Fiona McAleenan and I knew from the Law Directory that she was a solicitor in the practice,” Mr O’Malley said.

The court heard Mr Lynn told Mr O’Malley he would get Ms McAleenan to talk to him and that he later received a phone call from a woman who introduced herself as Fiona McAleenan from Michael Lynn & Co.

Mr O’Malley said he had a fairly long conversation and the woman told him that Mr Lynn had stopped practising in the company, was no longer practising as a solicitor and was fully involved in his property company.

Mr O’Malley told the court he was later “stunned” to hear Ms McAleenan had asserted she was not a partner in the firm.

“The person I spoke to seemed to me to be a solicitor who understood what they were talking about,” he told the court.

Under cross-examination from defence counsel, Mr O’Malley said he was not aware at any stage of National Irish Bank doing a deal with Mr Lynn where there was “some kind of loose undertaking situation”.

“Some other bank may have done this. We didn’t,” he said.

The trial continues before Judge Martin Nolan and a jury.