Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is correct in that regard. It is strange that we are almost at the end of the NAMA story and 95% of the issue has been dealt with, but this issue is only coming out now. When the legislation was being drafted, it was decided to establish the National Asset Management Agency. I know that the asset was the loan, but people were thinking of properties and the sale thereof when the legislation was being enacted. The sale of loans was not as common at the time as it is today. It is only with the passage of time that it has become more widespread. Financial institutions around the world are no longer buying property assets from each other; rather, they are buying loans that control the assets. That was probably not envisaged from a business perspective when the NAMA legislation was being drafted. As these practices became more common, the legislation should, perhaps, have been amended. We might ask NAMA to comment on this matter. We accept what it states.

Deputy Catherine Murphy raised the issue of the European Union (Anti-Money Laundering: Beneficial Ownership of Corporate Entities) Regulations 2019, but they will only apply to companies incorporated here; therefore, there is a limit straightaway in dealing with this issue. It would be interesting to know how much of the disposal of NAMA's entire portfolio consisted of loan sales which were not covered by section 172 and how much consisted of the sale of assets through receivers or the owners of the assets selling and making good their loans. Mr. McCarthy may know those details. In other words, what percentage of NAMA's activity was loan sales by it which were not strictly covered by section 172? Does Mr. McCarthy have that information or should we seek it directly from NAMA?