Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 14 February 2019
32. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Finance his views on the fact that multiple NAMA transactions since 2010 may have been in breach of section 172 of the NAMA Act; if he or NAMA has had engagement with An Garda Síochána or the DPP regarding their ongoing investigation into one specific transaction concerning a section 172 breach; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7355/19]
View answerI am advised that Section 172(3) of the NAMA Act is a legal provision preventing any interest in property held as security for loans acquired by NAMA from being sold back to defaulting debtors, or persons acting on behalf of defaulting debtors. NAMA has a policy of obtaining written confirmation from purchasers of NAMA-secured assets confirming that they are in compliance with Section 172(3) of the NAMA Act and it is a criminal offence for a purchaser to make a statutory declaration which is false or misleading in this respect.
I am not aware that multiple NAMA transactions since 2010 may have been in breach of Section 172(3) of the NAMA Act. I am advised that, to date, there have been two investigations into alleged breaches of Section 172(3) of the NAMA Act 2009, neither of which has resulted in a prosecution.
I am advised that NAMA has carried out two investigations into alleged breaches of Section 172(3) of the NAMA Act 2009. In relation to one of these alleged breaches, I am advised that NAMA has concluded its investigations and is satisfied that no breach has occurred. I am advised that NAMA is aware that An Garda Síochána is separately investigating the other alleged breach. Criminal investigations are a matter for An Garda Síochána and the DPP and to date, their investigations have not resulted in a prosecution.
I wish to advise the Deputy that neither I nor the Department of Finance have had any engagement with An Garda Síochána or the DPP in relation to their on-going investigation. As the Deputy will be aware, the DPP is entirely independent in carrying out her functions and neither I nor the Department of Finance are privy to her decisions. It would not be appropriate for me to question or query any action taken by the DPP in relation to these proceedings.
