Mr. Bernard Byrne:

I will attempt to answer as many questions as I can as quite a few have been asked.

The invitation we received from the joint committee was to discuss the Paradise Papers. It is worthwhile looking at how the situation evolved and standing back from individual details, disclosures and media comments. It is important to look at how the situation evolved, what the situation was for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and how it positioned itself. Based on my understanding, it really started in 2003 when the Revenue Commissioners became energised on the issue of offshore accounts. Obviously, they commenced a series of separate work streams in looking at offshore accounts. At the time they engaged with the chief executive officers of several banks in Ireland, ten in total. This culminated in a request from them to the banks here that they write to the boards of their overseas banks which were subject to separate regulation and separate legal entities to ask them to write to their offshore customers telling them that the Irish revenue authorities were about to begin an investigation which would start in 2004 and encouraging customers to avail of the voluntary disclosure legislation in place. That began the process in 2003.

By the end of December 2003 the then chairman of the Revenue Commissioners had written to the banks - in AIB's case, the chief executive officer at the time - requesting that the letter be written to the boards of the overseas subsidiaries and that these boards be asked to consider writing to customers. I will discuss the issue of data protection later. It was a voluntary request to do so because data protection legislation would have prevented anything more intrusive. My understanding of the position at that stage was that the boards, particularly of the AIB-related subsidiaries, considered the request and acceded to it. They wrote to any customer they had about this matter to advise them, as requested by the Revenue Commissioners, that a voluntary disclosure regime was in place, that they should comply with it because a full investigation would take place in March and that anybody who had not voluntarily disclosed at that point in time would not be able to avail of its benefits subsequently. I presume the basis on which the Revenue Commissioners were doing this was to get as much information as they could on a voluntary basis which would then allow them to target more specific transactions.

In 2004 the Revenue Commissioners, across the financial sector, began a series of High Court orders. It is important to point out that the only legal way they can get specific details on transactions is through the issuing of a High Court order. It is not the order of last resort but the order of first resort. There is no other way they can get such data.