Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Similarly, it was not deemed necessary or relevant by the Central Bank that the prospectus would include a differentiation between illegally occupied territories and the actual borders of Israel. The reason that is particularly relevant comes back to the money laundering point, the breach of the International Court of Justice and the laws under that, and the repayment of bondholders, that is, the risk for bondholders whom the Central Bank was charged with protecting. We heard how onerous it was to go through it but it is reasonable that the Central Bank would protect them. The revenues gathered in the settlements are the proceeds of crimes - not war crimes - related to illegal occupation. They are criminal proceeds. They are not legal proceeds. The revenues gathered there go into the central exchequer of Israel. Within Israel's budget, it is very clear that Israel pays back its bondholders from that central exchequer. We know there are over 500,000 VAT payers within the occupied territories. That money is going into the exchequer and then out of the exchequer to pay back the bondholders. Aside from the fact that it is clearly facilitating the illegal situation created by Israel as the International Court of Justice sanctions say not to, it is also money laundering. The Central Bank is the named authority around the knowing, handling or facilitation of the handling of proceeds of crime. Has there been an assessment into the money laundering legislation? Why was it determined that registering a differentiation between illegally occupied territories and Israel proper was not relevant information for investors?