In a statement the TUV leader said:
“Though the statements of Ian Coulter and Tughans are contradictory, their use of language is informative, remembering that every word will have been carefully chosen.
“Ian Coulter speaks of the IOM account as ‘an account controlled by me’; Tughans refers to Coulter as ‘the sole beneficiary’. This strongly suggests to me that it was a trust account which had been created in IOM. ‘The sole beneficiary’ usually refers to one for which a trust is created. So, Tughans should now clarify if a discretionary trust account had been created in IOM.
“A discretionary trust clears the way for eventual reward to whoever is chosen to benefit.
“These statements leave wholly unanswered the central question of exactly what work had been done in the name of Tughans for Brown Rudnick, given the seemingly undisputed contention that it was A & L Goodbody which had in fact been engaged as the local solicitor. So, for what was £7.5m the reward? How much was actual legal fees for legal work done and how much for other outlays, such as could be described as ‘complex, commercially and legally-sensitive’ ?”