Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform
Role and Functions of NAMA: Discussion
2:30 pm
Mr. Frank Daly:
Do we know all of the recipients of the information? Yes, at this stage of our investigation we believe we have identified all of those. Mr. Farrell sent 33 e-mails to his wife. That was the way in which the information got out of NAMA because, effectively, he could not have sent it out any other way because of the IT and the other security restrictions that are in place. His wife appears to have forwarded those 33 e-mails to Mr. Farrell's personal account. Beyond that, we believe Mr. Farrell would have sent information to fewer than ten parties, which we have identified to date, and we do not believe there are any other to come but we are not yet finished with this investigation. Those parties would have received partial or limited information. In some cases it would have been Mr. Farrell's own view of the property world and would not necessarily in all cases have used NAMA data. I should say that most of the people who did get the information are co-operating fully in the sense that they are confirming that the data they received was not copied or not forwarded or used and that it has been preserved as required by the court injunction.
On the question of what got out, again I want to be careful because we are still in a court process and under a Garda investigation, but no sensitive financial data got out. There is no possibility, therefore, of fraud or identity theft because we are not a bank. We have loan accounts but we do not have bank accounts. What Mr. Farrell took was information about 2009 valuations in NAMA. This was NAMA data, not debtor data. It is material that is useful to have but it is certainly not critical. He sent that out to himself, via his wife. He did not send it in full anywhere beyond himself. He may have sent extracts from it; that is all I can say about that.
Mr. Farrell also took information about loans acquired by NAMA, including the acquisition value. That is sensitive information obviously because it is confidential data under sections 99 and 202 of the NAMA Act. It is historic now but the important point is that there is no evidence that he sent that anywhere beyond himself-----
No comments