I propose to take Questions Nos. 80 to 86, inclusive, together.
As Minister for Finance, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any individual transactions.
On the more general questions raised by the Deputy, I am advised that NAMA is a designated person pursuant to Section 25(1) of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 (the "Act") when it is carrying out the activity of lending. As a designated person, NAMA is required to have procedures for the assessment and management of risks of money laundering or terrorist financing, based on a methodology proportionate in its detail and complexity to the size and nature of the business and the inherent risks of money laundering or terrorist financing. NAMA has such procedures in place.
I am further advised that when undertaking loans sales, which is a distinct activity from that of lending, NAMA conducts Anti-Money Laundering due diligence checks on a best practice basis in order to mitigate reputational risk. In all such transactions, NAMA is particularly interested in establishing the identity of the ultimate beneficial owners. Where such transactions include UK persons/entities, NAMA may make enquiries through the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), as appropriate.
Where property sales are conducted by debtors, notwithstanding the funds from such a sale may ultimately be used to repay NAMA debt, NAMA is not a party to the property transaction. The relevant Anti-Money Laundering checks are conducted by the parties to the transaction, that is, the solicitors involved in the transaction and the financial institutions through which the funds may flow, as designated persons in their own right.
I am informed that in this case the transaction was notified and cleared by SOCA in the UK as the purchaser was a PEP (politically exposed person).