Bank statements are inadmissible in Court?

davo10

This has been stated in another thread as fact, that bank statements are not admissible in Court in Ireland because they are "hearsay", I think it's wrong, surely Revenue/CAB/money laundering/fraud/Tribunals/Banking cases/consumer disputes all require at one stage or another proof that money in a bank account was ill gotten?

GM228

Bank statements are admissable when an officer of the bank swears an affidavit to the effect that a bank statement was an entry in the ordinary books of the bank, this exemption to the hearsay rule is provided for in the Bankers Books Evidence Act 1879 and reaffirmed recently by the Supreme Court in the Ulster Bank vs O’Brien & Ors [2015] IESC 96 case.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

This has been stated in another thread as fact, that bank statements are not admissible in Court in Ireland because they are "hearsay", I think it's wrong, surely Revenue/CAB/money laundering/fraud/Tribunals/Banking cases/consumer disputes all require at one stage or another proof that money in a bank account was ill gotten?

The CAB etc call a bank official to testify that there is money in a bank account.
They can't just hand up a bundle of statements and say, look at this, there is X amount here.
Almost all documents generated out of court have to be proven in order to avoid the hearsay rule. A doctors cert is hearsay and to prove it the doctor has to come to court, unless the other side agree. A guard's note from a car crash scene can't just be handed up either. the guard has to give oral evidence.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

The CAB etc call a bank official to testify that there is money in a bank account.
They can't just hand up a bundle of statements and say, look at this, there is X amount here.
Almost all documents generated out of court have to be proven in order to avoid the hearsay rule. A doctors cert is hearsay and to prove it the doctor has to come to court, unless the other side agree. A guard's note from a car crash scene can't just be handed up either. the guard has to give oral evidence.

Except in the case of statements an affadavit to confirm the statement was an entry in the ordinary books of the bank will sufice instead of the bank official actually attending the court to testify as per my previous post.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Except in the case of statements an affadavit to confirm the statement was an entry in the ordinary books of the bank will sufice instead of the bank official actually attending the court to testify as per my previous post.

If the case is being heard on oral evidence the bank official will have to go to court. It is only bank officials who can prove bank statements. They are hearsay in the hands of anyone else.

Turner

Section 21 Criminal Justice Act 1984 can be useful in relation to witnesses who dont want to or cant give evidence in court.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1984/act/22/section/21/enacted/en/html

21 days is the key here.

4ensic15

Turner wrote: »

Section 21 Criminal Justice Act 1984 can be useful in relation to witnesses who dont want to or cant give evidence in court.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1984/act/22/section/21/enacted/en/html

21 days is the key here.

What has that got to do with the admissibility of bank statements?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

4ensic15

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It depends on the context. Revenue can go to the bank directly if they have doubts.

Victor

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because they may be willing to use a lower burden of proof.

And they have your PPS number, which they can use to check against your bank accounts.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How come bank customers accept bank statements at face value?

The Revenue Commissioners and the Dept of Social Welfare aren't courts, and they aren't bound by the rules of evidence. And, as 4ensic15 points out, they don't have to accept bank statements at face value; if they think they're dodgy, or they just want to test the taxpayer's claims very thoroughly, they can double-check directly with the bank.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the case is being heard on oral evidence the bank official will have to go to court. It is only bank officials who can prove bank statements. They are hearsay in the hands of anyone else.

I never suggested otherwise, but if a court is willing to accept a bank statement as documentary evidence then an accompanying affidavit from a bank official is enough to confirm authenticity of the statements, the official does not need to attend court, this has been held by the CA and the SC in recent years.

The affidavit confirms authenticity, gives an exemption to the hearsay rule and means no official is required to attend court.

See Ulster Bank vs O’Brien & Ors [2015] IESC 96 which clarified this.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2015/S96.html

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

I never suggested otherwise, but if a court is willing to accept a bank statement as documentary evidence then an accompanying avadavit from a bank official is enough to confirm authenticity of the statements, the official does not need to attend court, this has been held by the CA and the SC in recent years.

See Ulster Bank vs O’Brien & Ors [2015] IESC 96.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2015/S96.html

Those were summary cases on affidavit evidence. The same applies to any business proving its own debt. It is different when a third party wants to prove someone elses document.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

Those were summary cases on affidavit evidence. The same applies to any business proving its own debt. It is different when a third party wants to prove someone elses document.

If I produce my statements provided to me by the bank with a corresponding affidavit are you saying the court will not accept them as they are hearsay, the exemption to the rule and the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 does not be limited just to the bank themselves, it provides that an affadavit supporting authentication provides an exception to the hearsay rule, if I have a genuine bank statement which the bank confirms as genuine then it is admissable, obviously if I just print off the internet banking and try get an affidavit then that may be a different issue.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

But we are not talking about someone elses document. If I produce my statements provided to me by the bank with a corresponding affidavit are yoy saying the court will not accept them as they are hearsay, the exemption to the rule and the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 does not be limited just to the bank themselves, it provides that an affadavit supporting authentication provides an exception to the hearsay rule, if I have a genuine bank statement which the bank confirms as genuine then it is admissable, obviously if I just print off the internet banking and try get an affidavit then that may be a different issue.

The Bankers Books evidence Act says orally or on affidavit. If the case is run on oral evidence then the statements have to be proved orally.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Bankers Books evidence Act says orally or on affidavit. If the case is run on oral evidence then the statements have to be proved orally.

In the O'Brien case the SC specifically confirmed that in actions heard in oral evidence, the fact that evidence relating to the validity of bank statements given on affidavit was not a material distinction.

Statements with an attached affidavit are in themselves considered prima facia evidence and do not require further oral evidence for verification.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Those were summary cases on affidavit evidence. The same applies to any business proving its own debt. It is different when a third party wants to prove someone elses document.

Just to come back to this point, I'll refer you to paragraph 4.8 of the Moorview Developments Ltd. & Ors. vs First Active Plc & Ors. [2010] IEHC 275 case, that specific paragraph was referred to in the O' Brien case and the SC held it to be correct.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2010/H275.html

4.8 A point was made on behalf of the Cunningham Group and Mr. Cunningham that some of the documents produced by Mr. Collison were not documents which could be proved under the provisions of the Bankers Books Evidence Acts 1879 and 1959. However, that submission seems to me to misunderstand the object of that legislation. As pointed out in Volume 1 of the 1st Edition of Hallsbury’s Laws of England at para. 1301, the main object of the Bankers Books Evidence Acts is to relieve bankers from the necessity for attending at court and producing their books under a subpoena duces tecum. The purpose of the Acts is not, therefore, to facilitate banks in proving matters. The purpose is to enable evidence to be given of the contents of other parties’ bank accounts without the necessity for the attendance of a representative of the bank concerned and the production of the relevant books. However, in this case a representative of the bank did attend and gave evidence that the records which he produced to the court were taken from First Active’s electronic books and faithfully recorded what was present in them. In those circumstances there is no need for the relevant records to conform with the Bankers Books Evidence Acts. That legislation is irrelevant to a case where the contents of the banks books are proved in the ordinary way by a witness who can give direct evidence of having analysed the books.

The O'Brien case made it absolutely certain that:-

• Bank statements are admissable in court with a supporting affidavit of a bank official.
  
• In cases of oral testimony an affidavit will still suffice.
  
• It applies to enable evidence to be given of the contents of other parties bank accounts.

Victor

Whatever happened to priests, doctors and bank managers being 'bad' witnesses?