A High Court judge has referred papers in the case of businessman Breifne O’Brien to Garda fraud detetcives after ordering Mr O’Brien to repay some €13 million, plus interest and costs, given to him by friends whom the judge said were the apparent victims of a “highly successful but not particularly sophisticated confidence trick”.
An application by Mr O’Brien’s socialite wife, Fiona Nagle, to vary an order freezing her husband’s accounts so as to get some €4,000 weekly for household expenses was withdrawn after Mr Justice Peter Kelly refused to hear it in private.
Mr Justice Kelly said he was forwarding the papers for consideration by the National Bureau of Fraud Investigation because he believed they disclosed prima facie evidence relating to the comission of a series of criminal offences.
The judge said it was “particularly odious” Mr O’Brien’s victims included not just long-time friends but the elderly pensioner father of one those friends. The only thing in Mr O’Brien’s favour was he had admitted wrongdoing, which was unusual in the Commercial Court, but that was of little consolation to his victims for the misery visited on them, he added.
As well as granting judgment against O’Brien, of Invergarry, Silchester Road, Glenageary, for some €13 million, the judge also made what he described as an unprecedented order freezing Mr O’Brien’s assets below €14.5 million.
Applying to vary that order, Berard Donleavy, for Fiona Nagle, who has five children, said she has “limited means” and was seeking some €4,003 a week for living expenses.
Mr Donleavy argued that, in making “a clean breast” of her financial affairs, Ms Nagle had disclosed information touching on arrangements agreed between herself and her first husband concerning their two children which were family law matters and should be heard in camera, he said.
When the judge ruled there was no basis to hear the variation application in private and also refused to transfer it to the High Court family list, Mr Donleavy said he was instructed to withdraw the application and the judge awarded costs of it against Ms Nagle.
Mr Justice Kelly earlier dealt with applications by John Hennessy SC, for several plaintiffs, for judgment against O’Brien who is alleged to have operated a “pyramid” investment scheme over some 15 years misappropriating millions from several investors to fund his personal lifestyle and business interests.
Mr Hennessy said, while Mr O’Brien had in a statement estimated his assets so far as some €36 million, the actual figure might be closer to €20 million when charges and liabilities were taken into account. Mr O’Brien's debts seemed to be about €17.23 million and his side wanted to see all books and records relating to his accounts. He would also be seeking orders to enforce judgment outside the jurisdiction.
Gabriel Gavigan, for Mr O’Brien, said his client was not objecting to judgment in the sums sought but was preserving his position in relation to the content of affidavits in the event of other proceedings being brought.
Granting judgment, Mr Justice Kelly said what had happened in this case was similar to the activities of fictional characters Montague Tigg [who set up a pyramid style insurance business with no money at all] and Chevy Slyme in Charles Dicken’s novel Martin Chuzzlewit, and to the real life Shanahan stamps scheme of the 1950s involving businessman Paul Singer [which resulted in thousands of investors losing money].
The judge said those schemes were also about persuading people to part with their monies for investments and also involved the whole house of cards collapsing when the flow of investment stopped. The difference between this and the other schemes was they involved members of the public while Mr O’Brien had directed his activities at friends from his school and university days and exploited and abused those bonds of friendship.
One thing in Mr O’Brien’s favour was, when the scheme collapsed, he had accepted responsibility and admitted wrongdoing and had now fallen on his sword in not opposing judgment against him. It was unusual in this court for parties to take responsibility for wrongdoing and he had saved the costs of a full trial and of going through the hoops to prove a claim of fraud.
However, that was not much to be said in his favour given the misery that had fallen on the plaintiffs, the judge added.
He then made orders requiring O’Brien to pay various sums, including €3,065,350 million to farmers Louis and Robert Dowley, with addresses at Carrick on Suir, Co Tipperary and €3,860,739 to David O’Reilly, a businessman of Fassaroe House, Fassaroe Avenue, Bray, Co Wicklow.
Further orders require Mr O’Brien to repay some Eu 4.4 million to Evan Newell, of Brighton Gardens, Rathgar, Dublin; €1,107,350 to former High Court taxing master David Bell (88), a pensioner of Kilgarth, Silver Birches, Dublin, and his son Peter Bell, a solicitor; and €450,000 to Daniel Maher, of Kiltiernan Pines, Westminster Road, Foxrock.
The judge also agreed to Mr Hennessy’s application to make an order freezing O’Brien’s accounts at €14.5 million, to include some €1.5 million costs, after counsel voiced concern individual freezing orders in relation to the various sums might not protect the position of all of his clients and other potential claimants.
The judge said any other potential claimants should move swiftly. The court had earlier heard Mr O’Brien had disclosed in his statement of affairs some ten investors, including the plaintiffs, were suing him for some €15 million. Mr O’Brien listed five other potential claimants - Patrick Doyle, Suzie C. Callaghan, Martin O’Brien, Eamon Connor and Robert Dennison, and also listed unnamed family members as possible claimants.
Mr O’Brien’s listed assets include properties jointly owned with his wife, including their family home in Glenageary, an apartment at Vico Road, Dalkey; a house in Barbados, an apartment in Sandyford, Dublin and a share in apartments under construction in Dubai. Other assets include syndicated property investments, shares and art works.
Proceedings were brought against Mr O’Brien in December just days after he told solicitor Brian Quigley, representing some investors, he had been “living a lie” for up to 15 years in relation to investments made for others and calculated his total liabilities as up to €19 million. He allegedly said it was easy to “pull suckers in when the economy was booming” but recent events made it impossible for him to continue his method of operation.
