Unlicensed Louth mortgage broker facing return to jail if victims not fully compensated
An unlicensed mortgage broker who took deposits for mortgages which never materialised has had a prosecution application to activate a suspended sentence further adjourned after the circuit court heard that the proposed sale of his house in order to complete compensation may not proceed as soon as anticipated.
Judge Dara Hayes said it was his preference that the victims get their money back but he added that Jimmy Cumiskey would return to jail if required after being told that the sale would not close on May 8 as had previously been stated.
Mr Cumiskey (64) had no licence to act as a mortgage intermediary since February 2012 and the offending occurred from March 2018 to March 2020.
In November 2024 the defendant, of Sliabh na gCloch, Jenkinstown, Dundalk, received a three-and-half year sentence, the last two years suspended.
He pleaded guilty to seven counts on an amended indictment. There were 21 charges on the original indictment, seventeen of which related to cheques given to the victims in various amounts totalling €25,260 which ‘bounced’.
In addition to what amounted to 18 months jail time, Judge Hayes gave Mr Cumiskey a deadline to compensate four individuals in amounts more than they were owed to take account of inflation and the fact that they had not been fully reimbursed after six years.
The judge previously noted that the four victims were owed €9,840, €2,950, €22,990 and €17,800 respectively, after €10,260 had been repaid from the original total loss of €63,840.
He was told of a proposal to sell the defendant’s house, against which there were judgements, to raise more compensation.
Judge Hayes said that before August 31, 2025, the defendant must pay further compensation of €12,500, €5,000, €29,000 and €23,500 to the respective victims.
Mr Cumiskey received temporary release from prison on December 23, 2024,
The case was listed as a Section 99 Re-entry at Dundalk Circuit Court on November 13, 2025, when prosecuting counsel Steven Dixon sought to have the suspended portion of the sentence activated for alleged breaches of the conditions of the suspension.
Counsel said that €12,000 of the first amount was paid last July but there has been no further payments.
The judge remarked that this matter had “meandered its way” through the sentencing.
There had been promises to make good. Three of the victims remained significantly out of pocket, while there was still a shortfall with the one victim who had received compensation.
The case had been adjourned on a number of occasions as further compensation became available and for clarification of what was still owed.
On April 27 last defence counsel Ronan O’Carroll said that the house sale was due to close on May 8 and that any outstanding sum would be paid over shortly thereafter.
Judge Hayes put the matter back to May 1, directing for all of the above to be put in writing to the state solicitor by close of business the previous day.
On Friday, May 1, Mr Dixon said there was a letter from a solicitor confirming that he was acting on Mr Cumiskey’s behalf for the house sale and that a solicitor acting for the purchasers had said contracts would be signed and the sale completed by May 8.
There was also an undertaking to pay €11,000 compensation upon the sale of the house.
However, Mr Dixon continued that there had been follow-up emails. Contracts had yet to be received from the buyer’s solicitor. There was an added condition regarding the water supply which may not be resolved for 2 or 3 weeks.
Counsel said that May 8 will not be a closing date.
In reply to Judge Hayes, Mr Dixon said it was his belief that a sum more than €11,000 was outstanding. The judge said he was of the same view.
The prosecution said it “seems the sale is on track” but needed clarity.
Judge Hayes remarked it was his preference that the victims get their money back. Things were progressing but Mr Cumiskey would go to jail if required.
At some point there would have to be finality.
Adjourning the case to June 3, the court said the amount of compensation outstanding would have to be ascertained.