Nama scandal: four more staff suspected of leaking secrets
Gardai given the names of other Nama officials alleged to have disclosed confidential files, writes Ronald Quinlan
FORMER Nama official Enda Farrell, who received a twoyear suspended sentence for disclosing confidential information relating to the agency, provided gardai with the names of four other Nama employees whom he claimed either assisted him, or were involved in leaking sensitive material themselves.
The Sunday Independent has learned that Farrell made the potentially-explosive claims while being interviewed by detectives from the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation in relation to his leaking in 2012 of sensitive information relating to the financial affairs of a number of country’s biggest developers, including Michael O’Flynn, the Cosgrave Development Group and Pat Doherty’s Harcourt Group.
One of the more serious allegations levelled by Farrell was that — in July 2012, and after he had left his job at Nama — another Nama employee delivered confidential information relating to a Nama borrower’s business plan to him outside Nama’s Dublin headquarters.
It is understood Farrell gave detectives the name of a second Nama employee whom he claims told him that they had also sent out confidential financial information relating to borrowers’ loans.
Farrell is also understood to have informed gardai of a third named Nama employee whom he claimed provided him with confidential information relating to the financial affairs of a major Nama borrower.
He is also believed to have provided gardai with the name of a fourth Nama employee whom he said sent him an email containing confidential information to his email address at Forum, the company where he was employed briefly following his exit from the State agency.
Separately, another former Nama official, Paul Pugh, was brought before Dublin District on June 23 last and charged with the unlawful disclosure in 2012 of confidential information relating to the Meath-based developer John McCabe’s UK firm, McCabe Builders (UK) Ltd to a named individual at Connaught and Whitehall Capital UK Ltd.
The Sunday Independent understands that Pugh, who is due to stand trial on indictment was not one of those Nama employees identified by Enda Farrell in his interviews with gardai.
Asked for comment on the allegations made by Farrell, a spokesman for Nama said: “Any statements made by Mr Farrell to the gardai have been, or are, subject to Garda investigation and it would be inappropriate for NAMA to comment on any past or current Garda investigation.”
Fianna Fail TD Marc Mac Sharry said: “It has been clear to me for sometime that the entire detail of much if not all of Nama’s portfolio was available to interested parties within the market. It is also clear that the leaking of this information was for some reason kept from the connected parties and the public. This is extremely serious and is highly likely to have undermined the Irish people’s potential to maximise the return from Nama disposals.”
Enda Farrell pleaded guilty to leaking Nama’s commercial secrets — but was he the only one to have ‘gone rogue’? asks Ronald Quinlan
WHEN former Nama official Enda Farrell pleaded guilty before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court last May to eight counts of unlawfully disclosing information in breach of the 2009 Nama Act, it provided for a neat conclusion to the oft-repeated story of a ‘lone wolf’, who, left unchecked, had gone rogue and betrayed the trust of his masters.
In putting up his hands and throwing himself upon the mercy of the courts, however, Farrell received a suspended sentence and walked free, taking the potentially explosive allegations he had made to the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation with him.
The former Nama man could be forgiven for wanting to get his life back after three years of living in limbo — but there can be little doubt that he and those closest to him feel that he was, and continues to be, singled out as the proverbial ‘bad apple’ in the Nama barrel.
But if the statements made by Enda Farrell to detectives who investigated him for his leaking in 2012 of confidential information relating to the financial affairs of numerous of Nama’s biggest borrowers are to be believed, the media’s shorthand description of Nama as a ‘toxic’ loan agency takes on an altogether different meaning.
While Farrell’s guilty plea prevented the allegations he made to gardai from being ventilated and interrogated in open court, the Sunday Independent understands that they include numerous claims, which if true, suggest that the leaking of confidential information from the agency was far more widespread than Nama chiefs would wish to countenance, let alone concede.
Claim 1
Among the claims made by Farrell to gardai in the course of being interviewed were that in July 2012, a full two months after he had left his job at Nama, another Nama employee delivered confidential information relating to a Nama borrower’s business plan to him outside the agency’s Treasury Building headquarters. This meeting, Farrell told gardai, was witnessed by another Nama employee.
Asked about this claim and whether or not the first individual identified by Farrell had been subjected to any form of investigation, a spokesman for Nama declined to comment.
Claim 2
The Sunday Independent also understands that Farrell provided detectives with the name of a second Nama employee, who he says approached him while he was still working at the agency to ask him if he had taken any information from Nama.
Having confirmed to his then colleague that he had sent documents to his wife, Farrell claims the Nama official in question told him he had sent out a spreadsheet containing confidential financial information relating to borrowers’ loans.
Claim 3
Farrell is understood to have informed gardai of a separate instance where a third named Nama employee provided him with confidential information relating to the financial affairs of a major Nama borrower.
‘Farrell’s guilty plea prevented the allegations he made to gardai from being interrogated in open court...’
Claim 4
He is also said to have provided gardai with the detail of an episode in which a fourth Nama employee sent him an email containing confidential information to his email address at Forum, the company where he was employed briefly following his departure from the State agency.
Asked by gardai how that email could have bypassed Nama’s firewall, Farrell is understood to have responded that the firewall was, at that time, only equipped to stop emails being sent from private email accounts, such as Gmail, as opposed to those sent from official Nama addresses.
Claim 5
Elsewhere in the course of being interviewed by gardai, it is believed Farrell alleged that he had told lawyers from a prominent law firm engaged by Nama to conduct an internal investigation into his misconduct that he had shared confidential information relating to Nama’s entire US portfolio with a senior executive employed by a US investment firm. A spokesman for Nama declined to comment on this claim and would not say if the agency would provide the findings of the internal investigation conducted by the prominent law firm on its behalf into Enda Farrell’s misconduct to the members of the Dail’s Public Accounts Committee or Finance Committee.
Claim 6
It is also believed Farrell told gardai that he provided a major US property fund with a confidential valuation report on a significant US asset, which was then under Nama’s control.
Asked if the developer or entity behind the property had been notified of this unlawful disclosure of that valuation report, a spokesman for Nama declined to comment.
What Nama said
In a general response to the issues raised in this article, a spokesman for Nama said: “Any statements made by Mr Farrell to the gardai have been, or are, subject to garda investigation and it would be inappropriate for Nama to comment on any past or current garda investigation.”