The High Court has rejected a challenge to the use of Bank of Ireland records in a Dutch investigation into alleged corporation tax evasion involving the drinks company Flugel N.V.
Dutch prosecutors in Breda had requested evidence concerning payments allegedly made by Flugel to an Irish-registered company, International Licensing Limited. Investigators alleged that licence fees were wrongly paid to the Irish company, reducing Flugel’s profits and its corporation tax liability. The allegations had not been determined in this Irish proceeding.
The requested material concerned an International Licensing Limited bank account in Dublin. District Judge Gerard Haughton, who had been nominated under section 51 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 to receive evidence for the Dutch investigation, admitted account-opening documents and correspondence from the bank’s customer file. Ordinary account statements were not disputed.
Marcel Bernarus Johannes Volkering, Bastiaan Paul Mosterd, Carolus Niolaas Maria Groenewegen and Beheersmij Helling BV sought to have the District Court decisions quashed. They argued that the account-opening records and correspondence did not qualify as entries in a banker’s book under legislation allowing bank records to be proved by copies rather than originals.
Mr Justice Roderick Murphy rejected the challenge.
The court held that the Irish statutory definition of bankers’ books had developed beyond traditional ledgers to encompass records used in the ordinary business of a bank. It considered that customer correspondence retained as part of an account file could fall within that broader concept.
More importantly, the judge held that section 51 of the 1994 Act independently gave the nominated District Court judge a broad power to receive evidence which appeared appropriate to give effect to a valid foreign request.
The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act facilitated the admission of secondary copies of banking material, the High Court found, but did not restrict the wider evidence-gathering power under the mutual-assistance legislation.
The court therefore held that Judge Haughton had acted within jurisdiction and refused judicial review.