Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Essentially, the legislation was presented in a particular light. The expectation was that anyone who was the original owner and transferred to NAMA would not become the beneficial owner again at a reduced price. That is shorthand for how it was presented. NAMA is probably being blamed for a shortfall in the legislation and in anticipating how things would play out. The public expectation was that a person would not be able to buy back a loan at less than its face value before the discount. That was an important assurance that was given. The criticism may be focused on NAMA and that may be legally wrong. At least one Garda investigation is under way and it probably relates to the circumstances outlined in a reply I received to a parliamentary question which states NAMA concluded its investigations and is satisfied that no breach occurred. What it is stating is right from its perspective. I have not listened to the definition, but the allegation is that a person is back in control of an asset that was substantially discounted.

Another aspect relates to SI 110/2019 under the European Union (Anti-Money Laundering: Beneficial Ownership of Corporate Entities) Regulations 2019. This information was also contained in the reply to my parliamentary question. Essentially, we are told that there will be a central register of beneficial ownership information. I do not think it will be backdated, but it will be of great importance in knowing who are the beneficial owners. As was identified when we discussed the matter of connected persons, there is a deficiency in the law and a gap in terms of what the expectation was and knowing who is the beneficial owner. I have no doubt that some people are back in control of their assets. It may be that the loan was sold and that there was a second transaction. If examples are being identified, it may be down to a flaw in the legislation. It is very frustrating to see such practices, particularly where people can point to things that others were able to do that they were not. That is certainly not the way the public expected the legislation to work in practice.