The jury in the trial of the three former Anglo officials charged with trying to conceal accounts connected to Sean FitzPatrick from the Revenue Commissioners is expected to begin considering its verdict tomorrow.

Bernard Daly, Aoife Maguire and Tiarnan O'Mahoney deny all the charges.

Judge Pat McCartan will charge the jury tomorrow morning and he has told the jurors they should be in a position to begin their deliberations by lunchtime.

The court heard closing speeches from lawyers for Mr Daly and Ms Maguire today.

Lawyers for Mr Daly told the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court that the prosecution case against him was that "he must have known" and this was not good enough.

Defence Counsel Sean Guerin asked the jurors to be questioning and sceptical of the prosecution case and ask themselves what the evidence really amounted to.

A former Anglo company secretary, Mr Daly, 67, from Collins Avenue West in Whitehall in Dublin, has pleaded not guilty to omitting an account in the name of Mr FitzPatrick's brother-in-law, John Peter O'Toole, from a list provided to the Revenue Commissioners.

He has also denied conspiring with others to delete accounts in Mr O'Toole's name from Anglo's core banking system.

Mr O'Mahoney, the bank's former chief operating officer, also denies omitting Mr O'Toole's name from the list given to Revenue.

He and Ms Maguire also deny trying to delete Mr O'Toole's accounts.

Mr O'Mahoney and Ms Maguire have also pleaded not guilty to trying to delete six other accounts linked to Mr FitzPatrick from the banking system.

Mr Guerin asked the jury to be demanding of the prosecution and not to settle for second best.

He said they should be demanding in terms of the evidence and the weight of the evidence.

He said the prosecution assertion that Mr Daly "must have known" was not good enough.

He said the jurors had to perform a function on behalf of the public. He also asked the jurors to be fair to Mr Daly.

He asked did the evidence actually prove that Mr Daly must have known or was it the case that the prosecution had not met the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and had resorted to that cheap phrase.

He said the prosecution had to prove that when Mr Daly gave a list of non-resident accounts in 1995 to the Revenue Commissioners in 2003, that he knew Mr O'Toole's account was not on it and that he gave the list to Revenue knowingly and willingly, knowing it was incorrect.

Mr Guerin said there were 3,000 accounts on this list and no one could possibly have known from looking at the list that the O'Toole account was not on it and although the list was cross-checked with another list by the Revenue Commissioners, they did not spot the absence of the O'Toole account.

Mr Guerin said the mere fact that Mr Daly handed over the list did not prove knowing involvement.

Mr Guerin said the deposit account of Mr O'Toole was clearly a non-resident account and was not bogus.

He said the prosecution had suggested there were suspicious transactions and that the account was being operated by Mr FitzPatrick's mother-in-law, Mary O'Toole.

He asked the jurors to look at the deposit account and see if there was a single transaction from Ms O'Toole on that account.

Mr Guerin said the prosecution was not satisfied with spinning the evidence, it was pirouetting and dancing around it to mislead the jury in relation to the evidence.

Mr Guerin said Mr Daly's role in the audit conducted by the Revenue Commissioners into non-resident accounts in Anglo in 2003 and 2004 was to liaise with the Revenue Commissioners on behalf of the bank.

He said his role was to present to the Revenue Commissioners, information that other people had.

He said this was key to understanding Mr Daly's role in the audit and this fact was ignored by the prosecution.

Mr Guerin said the prosecution had claimed Mr Daly was centrally involved in selecting the team involved in the audit but he said there was no witness, no document and no evidence to suggest that.

He said the jurors should be very careful about acting on anything the prosecution asked them to do if the prosecution was willing to mislead them about the evidence.

He told the jurors the prosecution did not have the evidence to prove that Mr Daly was centrally involved in selecting the team but was instead misleading the jury and that was a disgrace.

In assessing Mr Daly's interview with gardaí in 2013, Mr Guerin asked them to be fair to a 65-year-old man who was being asked questions ten years after the events.

He said when Mr Daly was made Anglo's company secretary in September 2003, he was being edged out of the bank from his former position in Treasury.

He said the bank needed Mr Daly to be a new face to liaise with the Revenue Commissioners because of the bank's history of misleading the Revenue Commissioners in relation to the issue of Deposit Interest Retention Tax.

He said the evidence showed that Mr Daly had been honest and straightforward in all his dealings with the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr Guerin said the only evidence against Mr Daly was the evidence of the bank's head of compliance, Brian Gillespie about a conversation he said he had with Mr Daly.

The court heard Mr Gillespie said Mr Daly asked him if he would be willing to delete an account from a list to be provided to Revenue if Mr FitzPatrick asked him to.

Mr Guerin said if the jurors had any doubt that this conversation actually took place, they had to acquit Mr Daly.

Mr Guerin said the prosecution case was that Mr Gillespie was not on the team dealing with the Revenue audit because he did not give the right answer to this rhetorical question.

He said Mr Gillespie was not on the team because he was no longer trusted by the Revenue Commissioners and because he had other work to do.

Mr Guerin said the jury would have to assess Mr Gillespie's reliability as a witness. He said Mr Gillespie had been dealing with the Revenue Commissioners at a time when the bank had misled the Revenue in relation to non-resident accounts.

He asked the jurors if they thought Mr Gillespie was a credible witness given that he was a party to the earlier obstruction of the Revenue Commissioners. He said Mr Gillespie had a very clear interest in shifting the focus to other people.

Mr Guerin said no one had ever investigated how the account of John Peter O'Toole was not on the list given to Revenue in 2003. The bank had not investigated this and no one else had. Emails of those on the bank's audit team had not been searched.

There had been no investigation into who actually removed the O'Toole account from the list. He said gardaí did not get a warrant to search Anglo and did not use powers of inspection. He added this was a case that was remarkable for the absence of curiosity on the part of the prosecution.

He asked the jury if they were willing to say that at the end of an eight-week trial, a passing remark was sufficient to prove the offences against Mr Daly. He said the prosecution did not take the trouble to find out who created the lists of accounts.

Mr Guerin said the prosecution was doing lots of spinning and pirouetting trying to distract the jury from places where they could find real evidence.

While the prosecution was engaged in this Danse Macabre he said, Magic Mike XXL (referring to another Anglo employee named Mike Chastain) was the stripper, involved in removing names from a spreadsheet. But he said the prosecution did not want the jury to know about it.

Mr Guerin said this case started with Sean FitzPatrick. It served his purpose if anyone was to remove these accounts and yet the prosecution said they should not form a view on his culpability.

He added Mr FitzPatrick was at the centre of it if there was any conspiracy. But he said the prosecution did not have the courage of their convictions to charge him and instead Mr Daly had been on trial for the last eight weeks on the flimsiest of evidence.

He asked if the prosecution case against Mr O'Mahoney or Ms Maguire might be reasonably possible, what purpose Mr Daly served in this alleged conspiracy.

He said the reality was there was no case against Mr Daly and there was no sense to the prosecution case.

Mr Guerin added there was no purpose to his alleged involvement and no motive.

He said the prosecution case against Mr Daly was built on one passing remark, if it happened. He said the prosecution was trying to distract the jury from the poverty of the evidence by misleading them about the evidence. He said if this one passing remark was not enough, he asked them to find Mr Daly not guilty.

In his closing speech on behalf of Ms Maguire, Senior Counsel Patrick Gageby said she was a "minion" or "gopher" in Anglo Irish Bank. She was not an officer nor even close to being an officer.

She was a person at the bottom rung of the ladder. As she was not an officer of the bank, she could only be charged with the offences with which she had been charged because the prosecution had charged her with conspiracy and not with the substantive offences.

Mr Gageby said the bringing of conspiracy charges was a convenient way for the prosecution to "get" Ms Maguire. He said the prosecution case was elastic and vague.

He said the prosecution had floated a very complete red herring by suggesting Ms Maguire got the idea to delete accounts because she was involved in deleting accounts in the Isle of Man that had been closed for seven years.

Mr Gageby said it was astonishing to suggest that this was her idea and that she had raced up to the office where Sean FitzPatrick was putting away with his putter to tell him about it. He said there was no evidence or the slightest indication that Ms Maguire was the driving force behind the effort to delete the accounts.

He said this suggestion was laughable and on that ground alone, the jury should acquit Ms Maguire.

Mr Gageby said the accounts were concealed in the interests of "people upstairs". He said it was the interests of Mr FitzPatrick and to a smaller extent, Mr O'Mahony, who were being protected.

Ms Maguire had started out in the bank as a Dictaphone typist. She had moved on to being an assistant manager to whom no one reported. All the IT staff members were more senior to her with superior technical abilities. She did not instruct anyone he said.

Mr Gageby said Mr FitzPatrick and others upstairs had a very personal interest in getting others to do their dirty work. The IT staff members concealed the accounts because they rightly believed they were so instructed by the people upstairs.

He said Mr FitzPatrick was the captain of the ship. Ms Maguire was the person left with her fingerprints on things and yet nothing happened to the man for whom nearly everything was done.

There was no prosecution that he was aware of for insider dealing or share dealing in a closed period.

He said no one in senior management had blown a whistle about deletion of accounts. There was not a squeak out of anyone until Mr FitzPatrick had left the bank, Mr Gageby said.

People upstairs speak in riddles he said, so they have maximum deniability and no one can pin them down.

Mr Gageby said he did not think Mr FitzPatrick was going to burst open the doors of the court and say it was all done at his suggestion.

He said that was not going to happen and he said he thought that was a poor show.