Sensational film reveals Quinn family trying to do deal in Kiev and get cash back to Ireland after court froze assets

Peter Quinn, a nephew of patriarch Sean Quinn Snr, and the bankrupt tycoon's son Sean Quinn Jnr caught on tape



Peter Quinn admits on camera to be prepared to lie in court

Exclusive video confirms that there is a conspiracy withing the Quinn dynasty to shift assets

See the full unedited video and transcript here: www.mailonline.ie/quinnkievvideo

Sean Quinn Snr pictured leaving a court hearing on Friday

Leading members of the Quinn family dynasty have been caught on secretly filmed video footage discussing what appears to be a multimillion-euro cash deal in Kiev in January - a time when they were the subject of Irish High Court orders forbidding them from disposing of the family’s assets worldwide.

The videos, which the Irish Mail on Sunday have had authenticated, are dated January 21 this year, a day on which Sean Quinn Jnr was in Kiev for a meeting with at least one of the people present, according to testimony he gave in the family's recent contempt of court case.



The damning videos also contain a strikingly nonchalant admission from Peter Quinn, a nephew of Seán Quinn Sr, who says he is prepared to mislead a court looking into the Quinns’ affairs. ‘I’d have to lie to the court,’ he says, laughing. ‘That wouldn’t overly concern me.’



The recordings feature Seán Quinn Jnr and his cousin Peter Quinn with Russian-speaking businessmen as they discuss payments to the Quinns ranging from US$100,000 (about €79,000) to US$5m (€3.95m).



Revealed exclusively here for the first time, and made public on the Mail’s website, mailonline.ie, the videos appear to confirm the findings of Judge Elizabeth Dunne, who this week found the Quinns’ conspiracy to shift assets was an ‘elaborate scheme’ that was ‘so blatant, deliberate and extensive’ that jail sentences may be required.



The videos show:



- Peter Quinn saying lying to the court ‘wouldn’t overly worry’ him; l Seán Quinn Jnr demanding $100,000 in cash that day and saying they are ‘unhappy’ they have ‘not had our five million’;



- Peter Quinn requesting a safety deposit box in Kiev because ‘we can’t get $100,000 into Ireland’;



- Peter Quinn telling a Russian-speaking businessman: ‘I’m not going to make your position stronger until I get the money;



- Peter Quinn stating: ‘I am in breach of Irish injunctions, which you are aware of’.

This week Seán Quinn Jnr, Peter Quinn and Seán Quinn Snr were all found guilty of contempt of court for deliberately breaking High Court orders not to transfer assets.



On Friday they were given three weeks to reveal and reverse dozens of transactions or face prison. During these contempt proceedings evidence was heard that both Seán Jnr and Peter Quinn were in Kiev on the date the recordings were secretly made.

Judge Dunne’s 56-page judgement against the Quinns outlines a chronology of vast and complex asset transfers by members of the Quinn family as they sought to put their wealth beyond the reach of the taxpayer-owned Irish Banking Resolution Corporation (IBRC), formerly Anglo Irish Bank.

See the full unedited video and transcript here: www.mailonline.ie/quinnkievvideo

Sean Quinn Jnr (off camera): 'We are not happy with $100,000 cash, but we will take it, obviously. Is there somewhere for us to put that today' Peter Quinn: 'Can we get a safe deposit box today... We can't get a hundred thousand into Ireland'

'To stay out of jail we have to deny we signed the contract. I'm in breach of Irish injunctions, which you are aware of. And I've been instructed by court in Northern Ireland, if I want to stay out of jail, come here on Monday and testify'

Among other things the judgement, by Judge Dunne, details how the Quinns made a series of debt assignments resulting in a €60m Ukrainian shopping centre with an annual rent roll of €10m being put beyond the reach of the IBRC and into the control of a British Virgin Islands company called Lyndhurst.

Peter Quinn signed the final transfer to Lyndhurst. But when Anglo discovered this document he denied that the signature was his.



At Anglo’s behest he was asked to go to court in Ukraine to state on affidavit that he had not signed it.



This issue takes up much of the meeting.

Two days later Peter Quinn signed an affidavit to the Ukrainian court saying he had never signed the documents in question.

Set in a Kiev restaurant, the sensational recordings capture a tense meeting between Seán Quinn Jnr, Peter Quinn and two Russian-speaking businessmen who the MoS understands may be representatives of Lyndhurst.

As the person responsible for the Quinn family’s Russian and Eastern European assets before Anglo Irish Bank seized them in April 2011, Peter Quinn plays a central role in the exchange.

Also present and visible is Larissa Puga – a Ukrainian businesswoman who was until recently employed by the Quinns to run their Kiev shopping centre firm.

Inexplicably and controversially she received a €500,000 payment from a Quinn company in recent months. Ms Justice Dunne said documents were fabricated to justify this payment, which has been frozen pending investigation.

'I came here to discuss, to see, if I could get any comfort from you and I haven't. My court instructed me that if I don't come to Kiev, and testify, I'm in breach of the injunction. I would have to lie, that wouldn't overly worry me'

Sean Quinn Jnr, right, says: 'We are not happy that we are not getting paid our hundred thousand now since January, we are not happy that we haven't our five million.'

The first video is a short clip of 16 seconds taken from a table adjacent to where the Quinns are seated in which both Peter Quinn, Seán Quinn Jnr and Larissa Puga are clearly visible.

‘There’s two things, Larissa,’ Seán Quinn is heard saying as he counts them out on his fingers.

‘They were saying they’ll give us $2m dollars cash and if they can’t pay with the company – one hundred thousand, we’ll take.’

At this point the clip, which is a wide shot clearly intended to establish who is at the meeting, ends.

But the context of the tense meeting is further revealed by the second clip of the same meeting.

This 15-minute continuous recording remains focused on Peter Quinn’s face and upper body and was taken from a device placed directly on the table in front of him.

The footage begins with Sean Quinn Jnr discussing and negotiating the $100,000 payment.

‘Is there somewhere, just before we go to... we’re not happy with the $100,000 but we’ll take it. Is there somewhere for us to put it?’ he asks.

‘Is there some bank open where we could put that at the moment. Could we put that in a box? Is there some bank? We are not happy with hundred thousand dollars cash, but we will take it, obviously. Is there somewhere for us to put that today. ’

Peter and Sean Quinn Jnr were filmed by a hidden camera during a meeting in a Kiev restaurant

As he speaks Peter Quinn, dressed in a yellow jumper and white open- neck shirt, nervously flicks the screen of his phone and says: ‘Can we get a safe deposit box today?’

At one point he becomes suspicious when he appears to spot someone bearing a camera elsewhere in the restaurant.

‘Is he taking photographs?’ asks Seán Quinn Jnr.

‘Camera! I can see a f****** camera. It flashed earlier on,’ says Peter Quinn before he relaxes again and lets the issue pass.

To his left, Seán Quinn Jnr’s arm and head can occasionally be seen and his voice clearly heard as he leans over to talk to his cousin about how to deal with the payment.

When it is suggested that the money simply be declared and brought to Ireland, Peter Quinn is incredulous. ‘Of course,’ he scoffs.

‘And all the major reporters expecting us when we land there with a hundred thousand.’

Then Peter Quinn speaks of going to Amsterdam with the cash.

‘We’re going through Amsterdam, so we have to go to Amsterdam... and there we… we can’t get 100,000 into Ireland.’

Translating for the meeting participants, Ms Puga asks whether ‘it can be put on your cards’ and then asks the Russian-speaking men, ‘What about Innishmore? What happened with it?’

Innishmore is the Peter Quinn-controlled firm which assigned the Kiev shopping centre debt to Lyndhurst. It is one of the Quinn entities subject to injunctions forbidding any trade of the Quinn assets.

‘No. Injunction in Northern Ireland where Innishmore is based,’ says Peter Quinn tetchily. ‘So it’s not a very sensible request. It’s impossible.’

During some further conversation about whether any banks are open Ms Puga is heard in the background speaking to the bank apparently organising the Quinns’ needs.



Then the conversation becomes tenser as it begins to turn to the question of why Peter Quinn told the courts in Ireland that his signature on the Lyndhurst assignment was forged.



The fact that the Quinns had a meeting with the Lyndhurst executives in Kiev in mid-January was confirmed in this week’s contempt judgement because Seán Quinn Jnr had briefly referred to the meeting in his evidence before Judge Dunne.

From Ireland's richest man to a bankrupt with debts of £1.7bn and now caught on camera. Sean Quinn Snr with his wife

Judge Dunne – and indeed the IBRC – both believe that Lyndhurst is secretly owned by the Quinns – a belief that has been widespread given the manner in which other assets appear to have been moved by the Quinns.

But when contacted by the MoS last night the company’s London solicitor, John Tasselli, denied that the company had anything to do with the Quinns.



‘Lyndhurst remains adamant that it is not and never has been a vehicle controlled by the Quinns,’ he said. ‘It is a completely independent company with entirely separate ownership and control whose only connection with the Quinns was the misfortune to enter into this transaction.’

Mr Tasselli declined to indicate who the owners were but the Kiev recordings obtained by the MoS indicate that the owners of Lyndhurst are businessmen who did a deal with the Quinns to take control of the shopping centre.

In his evidence to Ms Justice Dunne Seán Quinn Jnr had told the court that the last time he met Ms Puga was in such a meeting in the Ukraine on that date.

He said the meeting had been a fraught one, relating as it did to the allegation that Peter Quinn’s signature had been forged on documents assigning the shopping centre debt to Lyndhurst.

Just how fraught that meeting was can now be revealed thanks to the recordings. ‘I’m not going to make your position stronger until I get the money,’ Peter Quinn is seen saying, apparently discussing a deal involving a dispute over his signature.

‘We don’t have to stay together,’ he continues after some more Russian is heard. ‘The only reason we would stay together is if we get our money. If we don’t get our money we won’t stay together,’ he tells the executives.

When he hears this, one of the other men at the table speaks to his colleague in Russian, ‘So this is why he is denying his signature is on the agreement. How are we supposed to get our money if he is denying it? Is he talking about that?’

Because it is believed to be owned by the Quinns and has been involved in assignments apparently in breach of injunctions, Lyndhurst’s secret owners appear to have been having their own difficulties securing funds from the shopping centre asset. In addition they too have been the subject of court orders which they are fighting in different jurisdictions.

Sean Quinn Jnr also attended the meeting in a Kiev restaurant

They then decide they should show Peter Quinn a document. As they slide it towards him, they ask; ‘Do you know about this?’



‘That’s my lawyer’s…’ begins Peter Quinn as he scans the document.

‘They write that he is denying the agreement,’ one of the Russian-speaking businessmen tells the other. This would have followed Mr Quinn telling this to his legal advisors. ‘What are we supposed to do about it?’ he asks.

Sitting beside his cousin, Seán Quinn Jnr realises what’s happening. ‘What they’re saying is you’re reneging,’ he explains.

From this point Peter Quinn appears to adopt a strategy of blaming others saying he has no choice but to continue testifying – even in a Kiev hearing scheduled for the following Monday – that the Lyndhurst assignment signature is a forgery.

‘I have been instructed by court in Northern Ireland to come here and testify,’ he explains.



‘To stay out of jail, we have to deny we signed the contract. I’m in breach of Irish injunction which you are aware of. ‘And I have been instructed by court in Northern Ireland, if I want to stay out of jail, come here on Monday and testify.’

‘I have orders from the court, from the judge to come here on Monday and testify that I didn’t sign those papers.’



The MoS has established that on the Monday following the restaurant meeting – January 23 – a hearing in the Lyndhurst/IBRC dispute was scheduled to take place in Kiev.

In the end, the hearing was adjourned to another date but the MoS has confirmed that on January 23, Peter Quinn did sign an affidavit for the Ukrainian courts in which he denied the signature on the Lyndhurst assignment was his.

On the tape, unsure of what she is hearing Ms Puga asks, ‘What’s “the jail”?’

‘Prison, prison,’ explains Peter Quinn.

Then the conversation turns to the issue of whether Peter Quinn is prepared to lie to a court. ‘What are you going to do?’ the translator asks.

‘I came here to discuss, to see, if I can get any comfort from you and I haven’t,’ responds Peter Quinn. Suddenly one of the Russian-speaking men intervenes, speaking in broken English for the first time.

‘Your court say you will lie?’ he asks

‘My court instructed me that if I don’t come… to Kiev, and testify, I am in breach of the injunction,’ Peter Quinn explains.

Business empire: The Quinn Group in Blanchardstown where Sean Quinn made his multi-million fortune before his downfall

‘I understand but you will lie,’ the Lyndhurst executive asks again. ‘I don’t understand it. You have signed the paper.’

At this Peter Quinn laughs, sits back and shrugs. ‘I’d have to lie,’ he says. ‘That wouldn’t overly worry me.’

After speaking to the Lyndhurst executives Ms Puga asks: ‘So your court gave you instructions to come here and lie in Ukrainian court?’

‘Not lie… but to say he did not sign,’ interjects Seán Quinn Jnr.



Peter Quinn then comes back in: ‘I have two options they have given me. One, I can go to jail. Or two, come over here… Seán Quinn Jnr interjects to finish the sentence ‘…come over here and say he didn’t sign no agreement’.

After more Russian is heard the translator asks what Peter Quinn intends to do.

‘I don’t know,’ he responds.



Seán Quinn Jnr then suggests to Peter Quinn that the pair leave the table for a ‘wee chat’ alone.

‘We are unhappy about $100,000,’ Seán Quinn Jnr says as he goes to get up.

‘Not happy or happy?’ asks the translator.

‘Unhappy,’ he answers. ‘Not happy. We are not happy that we are not getting paid our $100,000 now since January, we are not happy that we haven’t our five million, we are not happy that Peter has to come over here on Monday, or stay over here till Monday, and swear here in court… ‘Youse need to think and discuss what youse can do to resolve our issues.’

With that, the Quinns leave the table and the recording device is switched off.

This week the MoS asked the Quinns about the recordings through their lawyers but received no response.

The questions centred on why the Quinns had been meeting these men and Larissa Puga, apparently to discuss transfers and payments of assets, while they were injuncted from doing so.

We also asked whether the Quinns had taken the $100,000 or any other sum and put it in a safety deposit box as discussed and whether it had been declared to any tax or regulatory authorities.

Additionally we asked the Quinns whether they owned any beneficial interest in Lyndhurst and whether they had sold their interest in the Kiev shopping centre for cash as the recording appears to indicate.

Furthermore we asked how the Quinns could be in a position to assist the IBRC recover the shopping centre asset if ordered to do so by the courts here.

And finally we asked Peter Quinn whether he lied about his signature in his Irish affidavits and if so to explain why.

On Friday after the Quinns escaped jail the MoS caught up with Peter Quinn.

‘We have a videotape of a meeting in Kiev in January 2012, with Larissa Puga, in which you said you were prepared to lie to the Irish courts?’ we asked.

‘The Ukrainian courts,’ he replied.

Pressed further, he said: ‘I want to get out of there safe. I can’t comment.’



Seeking to clarify the issue, we asked: ‘Just the Ukrainian courts? Not the Irish courts?’



Mr Quinn nodded his head but declined to comment further.



he MoS has confirmed that two days after the meeting in Kiev on January 21 Peter Quinn signed his name to a notarised affidavit swearing his signature on the Lyndhurst assignment was forged. The affidavit was sent to Kiev as part of the case there.

That sworn affidavit, dated January 23, and other testimony about the veracity of Peter Quinn’s signature has been utterly rejected by Ms Justice Dunne.

In her judgement this week Judge Dunne said she did not believe Peter Quinn’s evidence about his signature being forged.

‘I have come to the firm view that I cannot accept the evidence of Peter Quinn as to the alleged forgery of his signatures on various documents,’ she continued before adding that she was ‘satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was a signatory to those documents and thus in breach of the orders of this court’.

The recordings revealed today now appear to show beyond all doubt that if Peter Quinn did not lie about the signature he was more than prepared to for the sake of his family’s crumbling empire.

Now Ukrainians claim they own Quinn asset



A secretive group of Ukrainian businessmen has emerged, claiming to be behind the firm to which the Quinn family transferred their interest in a €60m shopping centre in Kiev.

Until now, both Anglo Irish Bank and Justice Elizabeth Dunne, who ruled on the Quinns’s contempt of court case this week, believed Lyndhurst Trading SA was a vehicle controlled by the Quinns.

The firm has been shrouded in a complex and bewildering web of transactions in a bid to transfer assets out of the reach of Anglo.

Mystery: The shopping mall in Kiev at the centre of the deal by the Quinns

Anglo, now owned by the taxpayer and renamed the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, has called the Lyndhurst deal a ‘robbery’. If it can’t be reversed, the bank – and hence the taxpayer – will be deprived of a large chunk of security it believed it held over loans to Seán Quinn.



This week Judge Dunne ruled Seán Quinn Sr, his son Seán Jr and his nephew Peter, were all in contempt of court orders preventing them doing this.

‘The Quinn family and in particular the respondents have taken every step possible to make it as difficult as can be to recover any amount due,’ Judge Dunne’s judgement this week concludes.

‘They have engaged in a complex, complicated and no doubt costly series of steps designed to put the assets of the IPG (international property group) beyond the reach of Anglo, in a blatant, dishonest and deceitful manner’.

But now a solicitor claiming to represent a group of Ukrainian businessmen, who he won’t name, claims the timing of the transaction means it is legal. The Quinns were ordered by the High Court not to transfer of dispose of any assets in their companies on June 27, 2011, and again on July 11.

But while Lyndhurst was only created as a company in the British Virgin Islands in July, John Tasselli, Lyndhurst’s London-based lawyer, claims the transfer was carried out on June 21, 2011.



‘Lyndhurst strongly denies IBRC’s allegations. They have always hotly disputed Peter Quinn’s claims that his signature on the documents...were forgeries,’ he said.

‘Lyndhurst welcomes [Justice Dunne’s] judgment, but remains adamant that it is not and never has been a vehicle controlled by the Quinns. [Its] only connection with the Quinns was the misfortune to enter into this transaction.’

Lyndhurst has already won the first round of this battle with IBRC in the Ukrainian courts.

In December it obtained a judgment in Kiev that it owns a $45.2m (€36m) debt formerly owed to the Quinns.

Last night Mr Tasselli refused to name the directors or owners, or to explain what money, if any, they paid the Quinns or their agents for the deal – but the Quinns have been given three weeks to reveal this to IBRC under order of the court.