Monday, May 14, 2007

An astute lady and two thoughts on BertieGate

As you are aware, my judicial separation proceedings concluded around November/December 1993. The issues which I have been explaining to the tribunal.
- Bertie Ahern, on his past financial issues.

However Elizabeth made a comment at GUBU. She asked the question
Why would a judicial separation be a reason for anyone not “operating a bank account for a number of years”?

And she offers two possible explanations:
1 -
The husband’s sworn affidavit of means was not a true reflection of his actual means or his ability to pay maintenance. If the court knew the true extent of the husband’s means, it would order higher maintenance payments to the wife and children. If the wife suspected this, she could apply to the court for a discovery order of any bank accounts and, therefore, the husband closed his accounts and operated on a cash only basis or through bank accounts nominally controlled by others.

2 -
As above, but the wife was aware the affidavit of means grossly understated the husband’s means. She was aware that certain amounts could not be declared in the affidavit because they had not been declared to the revenue. She colluded in this in return for, for example, a large lump sum or 100% of the house.

She ends with "So it seems the only possible explanation for not having a bank account is that he was either cheating his wife and children of maintenance or he was evading tax or, of course, a combination of the two. Or am I missing something? I know these are in camera matters, but what other explanation could there possibly be?"

I had thought the story dead but this is a very different angle on the affair which may be the straw breaking the camel's back or not.


Post a Comment

<< Home