Dear All,
.
This is my final communication on my case (aside from a one pager in December – keep reading), and while it pushes the envelope in certain areas including by hypothesizing broader consequences when a government is involved in criminal activity, I believe my prior Reports have established a credible basis for any extrapolations I have made.
.
Why a third Report you ask? Please see attached ‘Final Report 2019’…
.
Kind regards,
Maurice D. Landers
.
.
.
.
.
Corrections by author to Final Report:
.
1. Re. paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9, to be clearer, I’m just referring to Attachment F which is a series of emails that show that the Minister just quietly contacted the NTMA and told them to send me a reply which the Minister then used as a reply to me. In other words, it was all staged.
.
In the ‘Recent Developments’ section (p.29), 4th paragraph, I state, “Why didn’t the Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform just refer my case to the DoF and NTMA instead of sending me a final email reply, which stated?:…”
I should have made this clearer and stated, “Why didn’t the Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform just inform me that my case would be dealt with directly by the DoF, and not contact the NTMA and use a prior communication they had sent me as a reply to me wherein the NTMA effectively rejected my allegations and sought to bury my request for the audit plan/document in the FOI process?”
.
Re. 6th paragraph (p.29), last line, “But by referring me to the Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, doesn’t this bring ambiguity into it in that I don’t know to which specific Department the Minister is referring?”
While the Minister’s response/quote in 5th paragraph refers to the Department of Finance, the above sentence/quote is just a general observation about the ambiguity surrounding Irish Government structure, statutes and statements and should have been the first sentence of 7th paragraph.
.
Re. 9th paragraph (p.29), I adjusted the Minister’s reply just to demonstrate that, as above, his reply was staged.
.
2. Re. 13th paragraph (p.30), the words in parentheses at end i.e “(the DoF did)”, I would like to add (“the DoF did – see first Report, p.26, and see also Section 4)
.
3. On p.5, 6th paragraph, I state, “…but according to ICAEW, they need PwC’s permission to give me a copy of the internal audit plan that PwC provided them (Attachment E, email June 12, 2019)?”
ICAEW told me that they would need permission from PwC were they to request a copy of the audit plan from PwC. They had not yet made such a request.
.
4. Note – re. p.12, the TD (member of Irish Parliament) in question was Michael Lowry. SIPO received 388 complaints of which 70 were invalid. The Commission decided to discontinue its investigation into the remaining 318 complaints (trying not to laugh!) on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain them. These complaints had been referred to the Commission by the then Clerk of the Irish Parliament. See p.22 SIPO Annual Report 2013.
.
5. On p.3 of my Final Report, I state, “And ICAEW, ICAI and PwC I believe lied about its scope of services.”
Technically, ICAEW did not lie about the scope of services of PwC’s internal audit plan. While I have no doubt ICAEW unofficially either received a copy of the internal audit plan or was informed about its contents, officially they did not receive a copy as they had not yet completed their ‘assessment’ of my case. However, when it came time for them to continue their ‘assessment’ of my complaint, they cleverly ‘front-runned’ me by adding that access to such a plan would require PwC’s permission, thereby excluding any chance I would have of gaining access to it (PwC over a year earlier refused my request for a copy and ICAEW knew this).
.
