By Michael O’Farrell
Investigations Editor
Leading members of the Quinn family dynasty have been caught on secretly filmed video footage discussing what appears to be a multimillion-euro cash deal in Kiev in January – a time when they were the subject of Irish High Court orders forbidding them from disposing of the family’s assets worldwide.
The damning videos also contain a strikingly nonchalant admission from Peter Quinn, a nephew of Seán Quinn Sr, who says he is prepared to mislead a court looking into the Quinns’ affairs. ‘I’d have to lie to the court,’ he says, laughing. ‘That wouldn’t overly concern me.’
The recordings feature Seán Quinn Jnr and his cousin Peter Quinn with Russian-speaking businessmen as they discuss payments to the Quinns ranging from US$100,000 (about €79,000) to US$5m (€3.95m).
Revealed exclusively here for the first time, and made public on the Mail’s website, mailonline.ie, the videos appear to confirm the findings of Judge Elizabeth Dunne, who this week found the Quinns’ conspiracy to shift assets was an ‘elaborate scheme’ that was ‘so blatant, deliberate and extensive’ that jail sentences may be required.
The videos show:
– Peter Quinn saying lying to the court ‘wouldn’t overly worry’ him; l Seán Quinn Jnr demanding $100,000 in cash that day and saying they are ‘unhappy’ they have ‘not had our five million’;
– Peter Quinn requesting a safety deposit box in Kiev because ‘we can’t get $100,000 into Ireland’;
– Peter Quinn telling a Russian-speaking businessman: ‘I’m not going to make your position stronger until I get the money;
– Peter Quinn stating: ‘I am in breach of Irish injunctions, which you are aware of’.
This week Seán Quinn Jnr, Peter Quinn and Seán Quinn Snr were all found guilty of contempt of court for deliberately breaking High Court orders not to transfer assets.
On Friday they were given three weeks to reveal and reverse dozens of transactions or face prison. During these contempt proceedings evidence was heard that both Seán Jnr and Peter Quinn were in Kiev on the date the recordings were secretly made.
Judge Dunne’s 56-page judgement against the Quinns outlines a chronology of vast and complex asset transfers by members of the Quinn family as they sought to put their wealth beyond the reach of the taxpayer-owned Irish Banking Resolution Corporation (IBRC), formerly Anglo Irish Bank.
See the full unedited video and transcript here: www.mailonline.ie/quinnkievvideo
Among other things the judgement, by Judge Dunne, details how the Quinns made a series of debt assignments resulting in a €60m Ukrainian shopping centre with an annual rent roll of €10m being put beyond the reach of the IBRC and into the control of a British Virgin Islands company called Lyndhurst.
Peter Quinn signed the final transfer to Lyndhurst. But when Anglo discovered this document he denied that the signature was his.
At Anglo’s behest he was asked to go to court in Ukraine to state on affidavit that he had not signed it.
This issue takes up much of the meeting.
Two days later Peter Quinn signed an affidavit to the Ukrainian court saying he had never signed the documents in question.
Set in a Kiev restaurant, the sensational recordings capture a tense meeting between Seán Quinn Jnr, Peter Quinn and two Russian-speaking businessmen who the MoS understands may be representatives of Lyndhurst.
As the person responsible for the Quinn family’s Russian and Eastern European assets before Anglo Irish Bank seized them in April 2011, Peter Quinn plays a central role in the exchange.
Also present and visible is Larissa Puga – a Ukrainian businesswoman who was until recently employed by the Quinns to run their Kiev shopping centre firm.
Inexplicably and controversially she received a €500,000 payment from a Quinn company in recent months. Ms Justice Dunne said documents were fabricated to justify this payment, which has been frozen pending investigation.
The first video is a short clip of 16 seconds taken from a table adjacent to where the Quinns are seated in which both Peter Quinn, Seán Quinn Jnr and Larissa Puga are clearly visible.
‘There’s two things, Larissa,’ Seán Quinn is heard saying as he counts them out on his fingers.
‘They were saying they’ll give us $2m dollars cash and if they can’t pay with the company – one hundred thousand, we’ll take.’
At this point the clip, which is a wide shot clearly intended to establish who is at the meeting, ends.
But the context of the tense meeting is further revealed by the second clip of the same meeting.
This 15-minute continuous recording remains focused on Peter Quinn’s face and upper body and was taken from a device placed directly on the table in front of him.
The footage begins with Sean Quinn Jnr discussing and negotiating the $100,000 payment.
‘Is there somewhere, just before we go to… we’re not happy with the $100,000 but we’ll take it. Is there somewhere for us to put it?’ he asks.
‘Is there some bank open where we could put that at the moment. Could we put that in a box? Is there some bank? We are not happy with hundred thousand dollars cash, but we will take it, obviously. Is there somewhere for us to put that today. ’
As he speaks Peter Quinn, dressed in a yellow jumper and white open- neck shirt, nervously flicks the screen of his phone and says: ‘Can we get a safe deposit box today?’
At one point he becomes suspicious when he appears to spot someone bearing a camera elsewhere in the restaurant.
‘Is he taking photographs?’ asks Seán Quinn Jnr.
‘Camera! I can see a f****** camera. It flashed earlier on,’ says Peter Quinn before he relaxes again and lets the issue pass.
To his left, Seán Quinn Jnr’s arm and head can occasionally be seen and his voice clearly heard as he leans over to talk to his cousin about how to deal with the payment.
When it is suggested that the money simply be declared and brought to Ireland, Peter Quinn is incredulous. ‘Of course,’ he scoffs.
‘And all the major reporters expecting us when we land there with a hundred thousand.’
Then Peter Quinn speaks of going to Amsterdam with the cash.
‘We’re going through Amsterdam, so we have to go to Amsterdam… and there we… we can’t get 100,000 into Ireland.’
Translating for the meeting participants, Ms Puga asks whether ‘it can be put on your cards’ and then asks the Russian-speaking men, ‘What about Innishmore? What happened with it?’
Innishmore is the Peter Quinn-controlled firm which assigned the Kiev shopping centre debt to Lyndhurst. It is one of the Quinn entities subject to injunctions forbidding any trade of the Quinn assets.
‘No. Injunction in Northern Ireland where Innishmore is based,’ says Peter Quinn tetchily. ‘So it’s not a very sensible request. It’s impossible.’
During some further conversation about whether any banks are open Ms Puga is heard in the background speaking to the bank apparently organising the Quinns’ needs.
Then the conversation becomes tenser as it begins to turn to the question of why Peter Quinn told the courts in Ireland that his signature on the Lyndhurst assignment was forged.
The fact that the Quinns had a meeting with the Lyndhurst executives in Kiev in mid-January was confirmed in this week’s contempt judgement because Seán Quinn Jnr had briefly referred to the meeting in his evidence before Judge Dunne.
Judge Dunne – and indeed the IBRC – both believe that Lyndhurst is secretly owned by the Quinns – a belief that has been widespread given the manner in which other assets appear to have been moved by the Quinns.
But when contacted by the MoS last night the company’s London solicitor, John Tasselli, denied that the company had anything to do with the Quinns.
‘Lyndhurst remains adamant that it is not and never has been a vehicle controlled by the Quinns,’ he said. ‘It is a completely independent company with entirely separate ownership and control whose only connection with the Quinns was the misfortune to enter into this transaction.’
Mr Tasselli declined to indicate who the owners were but the Kiev recordings obtained by the MoS indicate that the owners of Lyndhurst are businessmen who did a deal with the Quinns to take control of the shopping centre.
In his evidence to Ms Justice Dunne Seán Quinn Jnr had told the court that the last time he met Ms Puga was in such a meeting in the Ukraine on that date.
He said the meeting had been a fraught one, relating as it did to the allegation that Peter Quinn’s signature had been forged on documents assigning the shopping centre debt to Lyndhurst.
Just how fraught that meeting was can now be revealed thanks to the recordings. ‘I’m not going to make your position stronger until I get the money,’ Peter Quinn is seen saying, apparently discussing a deal involving a dispute over his signature.
‘We don’t have to stay together,’ he continues after some more Russian is heard. ‘The only reason we would stay together is if we get our money. If we don’t get our money we won’t stay together,’ he tells the executives.
When he hears this, one of the other men at the table speaks to his colleague in Russian, ‘So this is why he is denying his signature is on the agreement. How are we supposed to get our money if he is denying it? Is he talking about that?’
Because it is believed to be owned by the Quinns and has been involved in assignments apparently in breach of injunctions, Lyndhurst’s secret owners appear to have been having their own difficulties securing funds from the shopping centre asset. In addition they too have been the subject of court orders which they are fighting in different jurisdictions.
They then decide they should show Peter Quinn a document. As they slide it towards him, they ask; ‘Do you know about this?’
‘That’s my lawyer’s…’ begins Peter Quinn as he scans the document.
‘They write that he is denying the agreement,’ one of the Russian-speaking businessmen tells the other. This would have followed Mr Quinn telling this to his legal advisors. ‘What are we supposed to do about it?’ he asks.
Sitting beside his cousin, Seán Quinn Jnr realises what’s happening. ‘What they’re saying is you’re reneging,’ he explains.
From this point Peter Quinn appears to adopt a strategy of blaming others saying he has no choice but to continue testifying – even in a Kiev hearing scheduled for the following Monday – that the Lyndhurst assignment signature is a forgery.
‘I have been instructed by court in Northern Ireland to come here and testify,’ he explains.
‘To stay out of jail, we have to deny we signed the contract. I’m in breach of Irish injunction which you are aware of. ‘And I have been instructed by court in Northern Ireland, if I want to stay out of jail, come here on Monday and testify.’
‘I have orders from the court, from the judge to come here on Monday and testify that I didn’t sign those papers.’
The MoS has established that on the Monday following the restaurant meeting – January 23 – a hearing in the Lyndhurst/IBRC dispute was scheduled to take place in Kiev.
In the end, the hearing was adjourned to another date but the MoS has confirmed that on January 23, Peter Quinn did sign an affidavit for the Ukrainian courts in which he denied the signature on the Lyndhurst assignment was his.
On the tape, unsure of what she is hearing Ms Puga asks, ‘What’s “the jail”?’
‘Prison, prison,’ explains Peter Quinn.
Then the conversation turns to the issue of whether Peter Quinn is prepared to lie to a court. ‘What are you going to do?’ the translator asks.
‘I came here to discuss, to see, if I can get any comfort from you and I haven’t,’ responds Peter Quinn. Suddenly one of the Russian-speaking men intervenes, speaking in broken English for the first time.
‘Your court say you will lie?’ he asks
‘My court instructed me that if I don’t come… to Kiev, and testify, I am in breach of the injunction,’ Peter Quinn explains.
‘I understand but you will lie,’ the Lyndhurst executive asks again. ‘I don’t understand it. You have signed the paper.’
At this Peter Quinn laughs, sits back and shrugs. ‘I’d have to lie,’ he says. ‘That wouldn’t overly worry me.’
After speaking to the Lyndhurst executives Ms Puga asks: ‘So your court gave you instructions to come here and lie in Ukrainian court?’
‘Not lie… but to say he did not sign,’ interjects Seán Quinn Jnr.
Peter Quinn then comes back in: ‘I have two options they have given me. One, I can go to jail. Or two, come over here… Seán Quinn Jnr interjects to finish the sentence ‘…come over here and say he didn’t sign no agreement’.
After more Russian is heard the translator asks what Peter Quinn intends to do.
‘I don’t know,’ he responds.
Seán Quinn Jnr then suggests to Peter Quinn that the pair leave the table for a ‘wee chat’ alone.
‘We are unhappy about $100,000,’ Seán Quinn Jnr says as he goes to get up.
‘Not happy or happy?’ asks the translator.
‘Unhappy,’ he answers. ‘Not happy. We are not happy that we are not getting paid our $100,000 now since January, we are not happy that we haven’t our five million, we are not happy that Peter has to come over here on Monday, or stay over here till Monday, and swear here in court… ‘Youse need to think and discuss what youse can do to resolve our issues.’
With that, the Quinns leave the table and the recording device is switched off.
This week the MoS asked the Quinns about the recordings through their lawyers but received no response.
The questions centred on why the Quinns had been meeting these men and Larissa Puga, apparently to discuss transfers and payments of assets, while they were injuncted from doing so.
We also asked whether the Quinns had taken the $100,000 or any other sum and put it in a safety deposit box as discussed and whether it had been declared to any tax or regulatory authorities.
Additionally we asked the Quinns whether they owned any beneficial interest in Lyndhurst and whether they had sold their interest in the Kiev shopping centre for cash as the recording appears to indicate.
Furthermore we asked how the Quinns could be in a position to assist the IBRC recover the shopping centre asset if ordered to do so by the courts here.
And finally we asked Peter Quinn whether he lied about his signature in his Irish affidavits and if so to explain why.
On Friday after the Quinns escaped jail the MoS caught up with Peter Quinn.
‘We have a videotape of a meeting in Kiev in January 2012, with Larissa Puga, in which you said you were prepared to lie to the Irish courts?’ we asked.
‘The Ukrainian courts,’ he replied.
Pressed further, he said: ‘I want to get out of there safe. I can’t comment.’
Seeking to clarify the issue, we asked: ‘Just the Ukrainian courts? Not the Irish courts?’
Mr Quinn nodded his head but declined to comment further.
he MoS has confirmed that two days after the meeting in Kiev on January 21 Peter Quinn signed his name to a notarised affidavit swearing his signature on the Lyndhurst assignment was forged. The affidavit was sent to Kiev as part of the case there.
That sworn affidavit, dated January 23, and other testimony about the veracity of Peter Quinn’s signature has been utterly rejected by Ms Justice Dunne.
In her judgement this week Judge Dunne said she did not believe Peter Quinn’s evidence about his signature being forged.
‘I have come to the firm view that I cannot accept the evidence of Peter Quinn as to the alleged forgery of his signatures on various documents,’ she continued before adding that she was ‘satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was a signatory to those documents and thus in breach of the orders of this court’.
The recordings revealed today now appear to show beyond all doubt that if Peter Quinn did not lie about the signature he was more than prepared to for the sake of his family’s crumbling empire.
FBI and translation experts… How we verified Kiev footage
In order to verify the recordings, a series of checks and corroborations were undertaken. We sought and commissioned the very best forensic video analysis and certified translation services available to authenticate the video footage.
The video material was sent in its original unedited form to Grant Fredericks – an instructor of Forensic Video Analysis and Digital Multimedia Evidence Processing at the FBI’s National Academy in Quantico.
Mr Fredericks is a renowned and certified expert with extensive experience in the recovery, scientific examination and evaluation of recorded video and audio information involving criminal and civil investigations in the US, Canada and the UK.
According to Mr Fredericks’s report, the two videos obtained are of the same meeting, were recorded at the same time and have not been edited or manipulated in any way.
‘After carefully examining the video and audio content, and the related metadata of both video clips, I have formed the opinion that they are original recordings that accurately represent what they purport to show,’ his report states. ‘In addition, after carefully comparing and contrasting the environment, the décor, the clothing, the table and the features of the individuals depicted in both video sequences, I have formed the opinion that the recordings accurately represent the same event.’
According to the metadata in the files, one is filmed on a SPY DVR Micro Hidden HD Camera Pen Cam and the other was filmed on an Apple iPhone 4S, using Software Version 5.01.
The MoS also obtained a certified translation of the Russian elements of the conversation and a second proof read from Word Perfect Translations in Dublin – the same firm gardaí and the Courts Service use for their legal translation needs.
FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN PETER QUINN AND SEAN QUINN:
The meeting took place on 21 January 2012 at the Fellini restaurant in Kiev.
Time 18:02:00 UTC+2
18:02:13 Everybody talking together
18:02:26 L- But not for all this amount
18:02:38 P- But why not pay fifty thousand… L- Very big scandal here, no one will register new forms but the national Bank…it’s controlled here.
18:02:48 V- Скажите ему, что их юристы очень возмущены почему мы напрямую с судом общаемся. (Tell him that their lawyers are very upset about us talking to their court directly.) Jl- Его юристы? (His lawyers?) V- Нет – вражеские…- (No, the enemy’s)
18:03:27 V — У них так не принято, но я так делаю. (It is common practice for them, but I do it)
18:03:30 L – He wants to explain that it’s not normal in Ireland, but he has direct connection with court. V gives P a laptop computer to look at.
18:03:50 V – Все против нас, мы не можем действовать как они. (Everything is against us, but we cannot act like them.) Z – He does not know what is going on in Ireland, but he has read some reports.
18:04:10 V- Да все они прекрасно понимают. (They understand everything perfectly.)
18:04:14 Z – Не надо психовать, мы вместе вылезем из этого всего. У банка масса нарушений. (Don’t panic, we will get out of this together. The bank has carried out many violations.)
18:04:29 V – It’s only one letter, but… so now you believe?
18:04:31 P – Show me the rest, show me rest of them.. .there is only one
18:04:37 V – Если я расскажу обо всем остальном, я проиграю в суде (If I tell him about all the rest, it’s likely that I will lose in court)
18:04:41 L – He don’t want to show because he afraid that the information will be outside…
18:04:49 V – Мы сейчас держимся потому что мы умнее противника… (We are surviving now because we are cleverer than our competitor)
18:04:54 SQ- Is there somewhere, just before we go to…we’re not happy with the one hundred thousand dollars but we’ll take it. Is there somewhere for us to put it? Is there some bank open where we could put that at the moment. Could we put that in a box? Is there some bank?We are not happy with hundred thousand dollars cash, but we will take it obviously. Is there somewhere for us to put that today? P – Can we get a safety deposit box today?
18:05:25 L – Они хотят снять банковскую ячейку… (They want to get a safe deposit box…)
18:05:31 Z- Да пускай снимают, в чем проблема? Или с собой вывозят, задекларировали и поехали, в чем проблема? (Yes they can get a box, why not, what is the problem? Or they can take it with them, declare and go, what is the problem?)
18:05:41 L – You can declare it…
18:05:45 P- Declare it?
18:05: 48 Z- Сто долларов с каждого на таможне за декларацию… (Hundred dollars each person at customs for the declaration…)
18:05:53 P – Of course, and all the major reporters expecting us when we land there with a hundred thousand…
18:05:59 Z – Пусть во вторник приезжает… (He could arrive on Tuesday…)
18:06:28 P – We’re going through Amsterdam, so we have to go to Amsterdam… and there we… We can’t get 100,000 into Ireland. L – But you can in Amsterdam go from airport…to box in Aamsterdam… P – It’s Saturday night by the time we get down to Amsterdam.
18-07- 08 P – When we get to the hotel maybe we can put it in the safe…
18:07:10 L- Is it possible to put it on your cards?
18:07:20 P- On our cards…? Conversation in Russian in the background about different options how to pay them hundred thousand…
18:08:03 V – А Инншмор они закрьши уже или нет? (And have they closed Innishmore already or not?) P – I saw that yeah he sent one email..
18:08:12 L- What about Innishmore…? What happened with it?
18:08:20 V- Closed?
18:08:22 P – No, injunction in Northern Ireland where Innishmore is based, so it’s not a very sensible request, it’s impossible…
18:08:35 V – Точно также и мы не можем перевести, вот чтоб он понимал… (For the same reason we also cannot make a transfer, so he should understand that…)
18:08:40 Z- Мы же предлагали на Инишмор перевести. В чем проблема? Давайте переведем на Инншмор… (We did suggest making a transfer to Innishmore. What’s the problem? Let’s transfer it to Inishmore…)
18:08:51 P- Is there any banks open on a Saturday, before we move off. Is there any banks open on a Saturday…? Can you check if banks are open on Saturday? S – Well there is probably one open til one or two o’clock. Some pause in the conversation
18:09:25 L – Ну так вы разговаривайте дальше… (You carry on the conversation…)
18:09:28 V- Так что? Надо же протоколы подписать… (So what then? We need to sign the protocols….)
18:09: 35 P- They’re all puppets (To SQ)
18:09:37 V- Ну да, он же уже подписывал… (Оh yeah, he has already signed them…) L voice in the background talking on the phone to the bank
18:09:53 P – Any other bank, yeah
18:10:32 P -1 am not gonna make your position stronger… until I get the money.
18:10:37 L – Он не может сделать нашу позицию сильнее… (Не cannot make our position stronger…)
18:10:45 Z- Так мы же вместе идем и делаем все для этого. Мы здесь – он там. Мы должны друг другу помогать. Все вопросы которые у них здесь были мы решили, вернули все в реестр. Ну как это так? Мы выполнили все что обещали. (So we will work together and do everything possible. We¬ are here, he is there. We should help each other. We have sorted out all the issues they had, registered everything. What is it then? We have done everything we promised.)
18:11:21 P- We don’t have to stay together…
18:11:23 V- Он что , не догадывается что мы знаем что он отказывается? Нужно говорть, что мы знаем? (Doesn’t he suspect that we know that he is refusing? Should we tell him that we know?)
18:11:28 L – Конечно надо… (Of course we should…)
18:11:30 P- The only reason we would stay together is if we get our money. If we don’t get our money, we won’t stay together.
18:11:37 V – И поэтому он отказывается что он договор подписал? Как мы деньги получим если он от договора отказывается? Он говорит об этом? (So is this why he is denying he signed the agreement? How are we supposed to get our money if he is denying the agreement? Is he talking about that?)
18:12:00 P – We don’t have to stay together…
18:12:20 L – Я думаю это надо показать, потому что это уже в суде… (I think we should show it to him, because iťs already in the court…) S – Is he taking photographs? P – Camera. I can see fucking camera. It flashd earlier on…it’s ok. OK.
18:12:25 P- Where is the boss? Where is the boss? Who do you work for?
18:12:36 L-Me?
18:12:40 L – Спрашивает, кто главный, ты или я? (Не is asking who is the boss, you or me?)
18:12:47 Z – Мы все вместе командой работаем. (We are all working as a team.)
18:12:54 V- Do you know about this? V shows P a file
18:12:58 P- Thaťs my lawyers…
18:13:00 V – Они пишут, что он отказывается от договора. Что нам с этим делать? (They write that he is denying the agreement. What are we supposed to do about it?)
18:13:10 Р- I have an order from the court, from the judge, to come here on Monday and testify that I didn’t sign those papers S – What they’re saying is you’re reneging.
18:13:20 80- I have been instructed by court in Northern Ireland to come here on Monday and testify, so I have.
18:13:28 V – Так он сам говорит, что его инжанкшен на Украине не действует… (As he says himself, his injunction is not valid in Ukraine…)
18:13:30 L- Он говорит, что у него есть постановление суда приехать сюда на Украину и подтвердить что он не подписывал… (He is saying that he has a court order to come here to Ukraine and deny that he signed…)
18:13:37 V- Так он подписывал, как он может? (But if he signed, how can he…?)
18:13:40 S- To stay out of jail we have to deny we signed the contract. P – I’m in breach of Irish injunctions which you are aware of’
18:13:50 V- Так если он подписывал, как он может?… (But if he signed, how can he…?)
18:13:53 Р- And I’ve been instructed by court in Northern Ireland, if I want to stay out of jail, to come here on Monday and testify.
18:13:58 L- What’s the jail?
18:13:59 P – – Prison…, prison!
18:14:01 L – А, если Питер не хочет попасть в тюрьму, он должен в понедельник сюда приехать и сказаться от этой подписи. (If Peter does not want to go to jail, he must come here on Monday and deny his signature.)
18:14:07 V – Но это же будет обман! (But that would be fraud!)
18:14:09 L – And what are you going to dо?
18:14:12 P – I came here to discuss to see if I could get any comfort from you but I haven’t.
18:14:17 V – Your court say you will lie?
18:14:20 P – My Court instructed me that if I don’t come here and testify, come to Kiev, I am in breach of the injunction.
18:14:25 V – I understand, but you will lie…you have signed the paper. I don’t understand it.
18:14:37 L – Его вызвали в понедельник в суд, и у него инструкции что он не подписывал… У него распоряжение суда есть…(He was called to court on Monday, and he has instructions that he did not sign… He has court instructions…)
18:14:44 P – Ha Ha.. I’d have to lie….that wouldn’t overly worry me.
18:14:47 V – Обманывать наш суд или как? (Deceive our court or what?)
18:14:50 L – So your court gave you instructions to come here and lie in Ukrainian court
18:14:58 P/SQ (talking together) – No, not lie…, not lie…but to say I did not sign.
18:15:00 P- Say, I have two options they have given me: one – I can go to jail or two… S – … come over here and go to court, come over here and say he didn’t sign no agreement.
18:15:10 L- В тюрьму, либо отказаться от подписи в договоре… (Go to jail, or deny his signature on the agreement…)
18:15:17 V- Ho так он же его подписывал. Как он может отказаться? (But he did sign it. How can he deny it…?)
18:15:21 L- What you will do? What are you going to do?
18:15:22 P-I don’t know.
18:15:33 SQ – Have a wee chat, we’ll have a wee chat for a minute? We’ll go for a minute and have a wee chat, ok?
18:15:45 SQ – We are unhappy with the hundred thousand…
18:15:48 L – Not happy or happy?
18:15:53 SQ- Unhappy. Not happy. We are not happy that we are not getting paid our hundred thousand now since January, we are not happy that we haven’t our five million, we are not happy that Peter has to come over here on Monday, or stay over here till Monday and swear here in court.. .and (unintelligible) S – Youse need to think and discuss what youse can do need to do to resolve our issues. L-You going back or not? P – Yes we are going back.
Transcript terminates.
No further audio material was provided after 18:16:00
*******
POSTSCRIPT
The Panama Papers expose of April 2016 threw further light on the way the Quinn’s €60m Ukrainia shopping centre was put beyond the reach of the IBRC and into the control of a British Virgin Islands company called Lyndhurst.
Leaked files from secretive Panamanian firm, Mossad Fonseca, confirm that Aleksandr Orlov was – as we reported – the beneficial owner of Lyndhurst from the beginning of its involvement in the Quinn’s Ukrania shopping mall.
The leaked papers also show that Mossad Fonseca was concerned about the possibility of being dragged into the legal dispute between IBRC and the Quinns as both sides battled over control of former Quinn assets.
The Irish Times – a member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists which oversaw the Panama Papers leak – reported the Mossad Fonseca link on April 6, 2016. Those reports – by Colm Keena – can be viewed at the following links;
Panama Papers firm linked to legal fight over Quinn property
