Mr. Jonathan Sugarman:

Turning back to item No. 1, Ms Kathleen Barrington's article about Senator Norris raising my issue in the Seanad, she wrote that, in another strange twist to the story, the central European bank at whose IFSC subsidiary the whistleblower worked - UniCredit - during the relevant period had emphatically denied that it was the bank to which Senator Norris had referred in the Seanad. This was written in May 2010. That means that in May 2010, Ms Barrington of the Sunday Business Postcontacted UniCredit Milan and asked what it had to say for itself following Senator Norris's statement that it had been in repeated breach, but it had emphatically denied that it was the bank.

How is it possible that three years after the events, the parent bank is claiming that the matter has nothing to do with it? Theoretically, the bank would have told Mommy and Daddy that it got into a bit of trouble in Dublin. Not only that, but because Jonathan Sugarman notified the regulator and given that Brian Lenihan, in his response to Senator Norris, stated that all central banks co-operated, one would assume that the Irish Central Bank would have notified its Italian counterpart, Banca d'Italia, and asked whether it knew that it had a petulant child in Dublin who did not know how to calculate liquidity and was caught with its pants down. It is only three months ago that Mario Draghi, currently the ECB president but, at the time, the governor of Banca d'Italia, with UniCredit the biggest Italian bank on his watch, told Luke "Ming" Flanagan, MEP, that he had no idea what the MEP was talking about. I have included this in my submission to the committee. How can it be that, if everyone had done what he or she was supposed to do, Mario Draghi claimed three months ago that he had never heard of this matter or that, three years after the situation arose, the bank was emphatically denying to the Sunday Business Postthat it was the bank to which Senator Norris referred?