Naming the 10 – Ross and Lenihan

Sayeth Dick Roche:

A Minister of State has today contended that the Government cannot identify the ten individuals involved in the €451 million transaction to purchase shares in Anglo Irish Bank being unwound by businessman Sean Quinn.

Dick Roche, the Minister for European Affairs, said today that the Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan told him that as sole shareholder of the nationalised bank, he has no right to receive information as to identity of the ten individuals.

Mr Roche also rejected allegations that the Government was trying to protect or shield any of the ten.

In a statement responding to weekend media reports that purported to name some of the ten investors, Mr Roche has that Mr Lenihan had confirmed to him that the requirement of confidentiality is laid down in the Central Bank Act 1942.

“It would completely undermine the confidence of customers generally in Anglo Irish Bank if the Minister as shareholder could obtain access to confidential customer information,” said Mr Roche.

The public already know the name of four of the 10. Does Mr Lenihan read the papers? Is Mr Lenihan aware that a close personal friend of his, a close neighbour, and a constituent – Seamus Ross – is one of the 10? I can send him a text if he likes, or maybe an email?

5 thoughts on “Naming the 10 – Ross and Lenihan”

  1. I’d lay a bet that if you looked at Anglo-Irish’s share register in late April there would be 10 particularly large purchases of shares. Why not just publicise the share register details, perhaps in order of transaction value? Of course, I’m not suggesting that the ten buyers of these shares would be the 10 members of the Golden Circle that we want to know, but some people might leap to that conclusion.

    Perhaps there is someone out here who could clarify how much of the Share Register is in the public domain?

  2. Well done on all of this digging, Gavin. It’s a public service.

    There is no rationale to the government’s response to the ‘naming’ issue. At least no rationale other than it is not politically expedient for them to do so.

    We own the bank, and it is worthless. Are they telling us that the owners or a bank have no right, or duty to know who owes it significant amounts of money?

    When there was a shareholders’ meeting were there not cameras in the room? Was that ‘prejudicial’, or contrary to the banking regulations?

    Anyone holding public office should be statute-barred from having un-minuted, unofficial, private meetings with private institutions or shareholders who stand to gain from influencing legislative or regulatory functions.

Comments are closed.