O'Dowd & Ors v McGinley [2025] IEHC 713:
Enforcing Guaranteed Returns in Informal Investment Agreements and the Primacy of Evidence in Fraud Damages

1. Introduction

This High Court decision, delivered by Barrett J on 11 December 2025, arises out of a fraudulent investment scheme involving unsophisticated, handwritten “investment agreements” between private individuals, followed by a criminal prosecution and a civil action.

The judgment in O'Dowd & Ors v McGinley clarifies two particularly important points:

How Irish courts will construe very informal, badly drafted “investment agreements” and whether clauses providing substantial “extra” payments are enforceable guarantees of return or unenforceable penalties.
The insistence that courts must proceed strictly on evidence when assessing civil damages, even where the defendant has admitted criminal fraud and there is strong sympathy for the plaintiffs.

The case therefore sits at the intersection of contract law, fraud, the assessment of damages after default judgment, and the practical demands of proof in civil litigation. It is particularly significant for:

Victims of fraudulent investment schemes seeking civil recovery;
Practitioners dealing with informal, non-lawyer-drafted contracts;
Cases where parallel criminal proceedings and restitution payments exist;
The emerging treatment of alleged penalty clauses in Irish contract law.

2. Background and Procedural Context

2.1 Parties and factual setting

The defendant, Austin McGinley, was a former deputy manager with Tesco. He befriended a shelf-packer, Mr Flavin, who claimed to possess a lucrative stock market “system”. McGinley invested with Flavin and, seeking further investors, placed a newspaper advertisement.

The plaintiffs are:

Liam O’Dowd;
Teresa Barrett (sometimes referred to as “Teresa Down” in the handwritten agreement);
Síle Barrett, Teresa’s daughter.

In response to the advertisement, Teresa Barrett and her husband invested €80,000 with McGinley, and later encouraged their daughter, Síle, to invest €35,000. A further transfer of the euro equivalent of US$50,000 (c. €39,837) was sent from Teresa Barrett’s account to a US bank (BMO Harris Bank in Chicago) in 2014. The core factual disputes centred on:

How to characterise the two written agreements (loan vs investment);
The meaning and effect of the vaguely expressed return provisions;
Whether McGinley was legally responsible for the US$50,000 transfer;
Whether additional consequential losses (business collapse, mental health harm) were proved.

2.2 Fraudulent conduct and criminal proceedings

McGinley did not simply invest and lose the funds. When the purported stock market investments failed, he:

“Strung the plaintiffs along” with repeated lies;
Faked letters from the Central Bank of Ireland;
Faked a solicitor’s letter (including one dated 5 March 2018);
Invented explanations for non-payment of returns.

These actions led to criminal charges under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, to which he pleaded guilty. Sentencing was pending at the time of the civil hearing. He had already paid back the initial capital sums (€80,000 and €35,000) plus an earlier €5,000, totalling €120,000 (including €115,000 paid into court).

2.3 The civil proceedings and default judgment

The plaintiffs commenced civil proceedings by plenary summons on 1 February 2019 seeking:

Judgment for €155,000;
Damages for breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence, breach of duty, fraud and/or deceit;
Interest and costs.

They obtained judgment in default of appearance against McGinley, so liability in general terms was established. The matter came before Barrett J as an assessment of damages only.

Although in default, McGinley was permitted to participate in the assessment hearing and to file submissions. Crucially, he did not dispute liability in respect of the €80,000 and €35,000 agreements; his real contest concerned:

Liability for the US$50,000 transfer (the third transaction);
The extent and nature of contractual returns and interest payable;
The plaintiffs’ additional heads of loss (company collapse and mental health injury).

3. Summary of the Judgment

In essence, Barrett J:

Characterised the two written arrangements as “investment agreements”, not loans. The €80,000 and €35,000 documents were construed as contracts for investment with guaranteed returns, albeit drafted in crude and sometimes incoherent language.
Enforced the guaranteed minimum returns as primary obligations, not penalties. The €10,000 “extra” in Teresa Barrett’s agreement and the replicated €35,000 payments in Síle Barrett’s agreement were treated as agreed returns on the investments, not penalty clauses triggered by breach.
Rejected liability for the US$50,000 transfer to the US bank. The plaintiffs failed, on the balance of probabilities, to establish that McGinley was involved in or responsible for this transfer. There was no corroborating evidence beyond Teresa Barrett’s (partially unreliable) recollection.
Rejected the alleged causation of corporate collapse and mental health injury. The court found no adequate evidential basis:
- To link “cash drawings” taken from Teresa Barrett’s company to the company’s eventual commercial failure; or
- To connect the failed investment with any proven deterioration in Síle Barrett’s mental health.
Awarded contractual sums and interest as follows:
- To Teresa Barrett: €80,000 capital + €10,000 guaranteed return (total €90,000), with interest running from 20 March 2016 (54 months after the initial investment date of 20 September 2011).
- To Síle Barrett: three tranches of €35,000 (total €105,000), with interest to run from:
  - 28 May 2014 (for the first €35,000);
  - 31 December 2015 (for the second €35,000);
  - 31 December 2017 (for the third €35,000).
These sums are to be netted against the €120,000 already paid by McGinley and any payments made in the criminal process, to avoid double recovery.
Found no undue delay by the plaintiffs. The fake correspondence continued until March 2018, and proceedings were issued in February 2019. There was no delay warranting a reduction in, or refusal of, interest.
Held that interest was not oppressive. Given McGinley’s fraud and the plaintiffs’ prolonged deception, the award of interest was necessary to avoid injustice to the plaintiffs.

The exact quantum payable will be determined by calculation of interest and netting off prior payments. The court reserved the issue of costs.

4. Detailed Legal Analysis

4.1 Characterisation of the agreements: investments, not loans

A central argument at the assessment stage concerned the nature of the two written documents:

The €80,000 agreement (20 September 2011), between Teresa Barrett (and her husband) and McGinley.
The €35,000 agreement (28 May 2012), between Síle Barrett and McGinley.

Counsel for McGinley contended that these were in substance loan agreements, not investment contracts. Barrett J emphatically disagreed. He notes that the €80,000 document is structured as an “investment agreement with a fixed rate of return” and the €35,000 document, though “more like a receipt”, also speaks of a return and is properly construed as an investment.

The key reasons for choosing “investment” rather than “loan” include:

The language used — the documents explicitly refer to “investment agreement” and speak of “x 3” and “x 7” returns, strongly redolent of speculative investment rather than a conventional loan with interest.
The structure — funds were placed for fixed periods with contingent high multiples of return, not merely a principal plus a defined rate of interest.
The factual context — money was being channelled into a purported stock market scheme devised by a third party (Flavin), not simply lent to McGinley for his own use.

As an aside, the judge notes, somewhat pointedly, that he found it hard to understand why Síle Barrett would place €35,000 with a man she “barely knew” and who did not impress him as financially savvy. Nonetheless, such scepticism about the commercial wisdom of the decision did not affect the legal conclusion as to the nature of the agreements.

Significance: The classification matters because:

It frames how the clauses are interpreted — as promised investment returns rather than default interest or damages for late repayment of a loan.
It supports the court’s rejection of the “penalty clause” argument: what is being enforced is the core investment bargain, not a punitive add-on for breach.

4.2 Construction of very poorly drafted agreements

Both documents were described as “not optimally well-drafted”. Parts of the €35,000 agreement are almost unintelligible. Nonetheless, the court undertook to give them workable meaning.

4.2.1 The €80,000 agreement (Teresa Barrett)

The handwritten letter of 20 September 2011 records:

Payment of €16,000 in cash and €64,000 by cheque;
An investment period of “2 years and three weeks” (27 months);
References to payments at “18 months” and “afterwards x 3 & 18 months & 18 months on we get x 7 times”;
A clause that if “this investment agreement doesn’t work” McGinley will sell his house and “give back €80,000 and €10,000 extra”.

Although the timing and “x3 / x7” multipliers are opaque, the court identifies a clear minimum guaranteed framework:

At the end of the 54-month period (which Barrett J fixes as 20 March 2016), Teresa Barrett should receive at least:
- Return of the €80,000 principal; plus
- A guaranteed €10,000 extra.
The “x3” and “x7” language contemplates the possibility of substantially higher returns if the investment succeeded, but those enhanced returns were not central to the claim before the court.

In other words, the contract is treated as promising a minimum return of €90,000 after the investment period, whatever the fate of the underlying stock market strategy.

4.2.2 The €35,000 agreement (Síle Barrett)

The 28 May 2012 document records the payment of €35,000 and states:

“Money back 24 months. By 2 in 18 months after bein[g] 2015, & by 3 18 after again 2017”.

Barrett J accepts that the timing references are confusing, but reasons as follows:

“Money back 24 months” – the €35,000 is to be repaid two years from 28 May 2012.
“By 2 in 18 months after being 2015” – an amount equal to the €35,000 is to be paid in 2015 (18 months after the first repayment date).
“By 3 18 after again 2017” – another €35,000 is to be paid in 2017 (18 months after the previous due date).

To remove ambiguity while favouring fairness, the court fixes the latest possible dates consistent with the language:

First €35,000: payable on 28 May 2014;
Second €35,000: payable by 31 December 2015;
Third €35,000: payable by 31 December 2017.

Again, the structure is clearly that of a guaranteed multiple return: the original capital is repaid after two years, and then a sum equal to the capital is paid twice more over the following years.

Key interpretive move: Where the timing is unclear, Barrett J selects the latest plausible dates (which reduces interest), as the fairest approach given the ambiguity. He notes that the contra proferentem rule (interpreting ambiguity against the party who drafted the clause) was not argued and that he lacked sufficient evidence to apply it in any event.

4.3 The penalty clause argument and guaranteed returns

Counsel for McGinley argued that the €10,000 “extra” in Teresa Barrett’s agreement amounted to an unenforceable penalty clause.

The court rejects this:

The €10,000 is not a secondary obligation triggered by breach of contract (for example, for late repayment), but part of the primary bargain: a guaranteed minimum investment return.
Even when the clause refers to the chance that the “investment agreement doesn’t work”, this is not framed as a breach by the investor; it describes the economic failure of the underlying investment, which is distinct from McGinley’s contractual obligation to pay the agreed return.
The clause is therefore not “in terrorem” of breach, but integral to the allocation of risk and reward between the parties.

The same logic applies to the €35,000 agreement. The two additional €35,000 payments are not damages for breach; they are expressly the agreed investment return (one in 2015 and another in 2017) on top of the capital repayment.

In broader doctrinal terms, the judge is aligning with the now well-established principle that the penalty rule only concerns secondary obligations (that arise upon breach), not the fairness of the primary price or return that parties choose to contract for.

4.4 Causation and proof: the US$50,000 transfer and corporate collapse

4.4.1 The US$50,000 transfer (16 September 2014)

Teresa Barrett claimed that, on 16 September 2014, she went with McGinley to Ulster Bank in Tralee and, with his assistance, wired the euro equivalent of US$50,000 to BMO Harris Bank in Chicago. She asserted that this constituted a further investment facilitated by McGinley, for which he should be liable.

The court accepts that:

She did attend the bank and that the transfer did occur; and
She is unlikely to have invented the name of the US bank.

However, Barrett J stresses that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs and that “courts must proceed on evidence”. The evidence here was defective:

There was no documentary or independent evidence showing McGinley’s presence in the bank or involvement in the transfer.
Teresa Barrett’s own recollection was partly undermined by corrections from her accountant who was present that day, indicating some inaccuracy in her memory of the events.
The bank officials who processed the transfer did not give evidence.

McGinley maintained that he had nothing to do with this third transfer and that he himself had lost money with Flavin. Whatever the true history, the judge finds no evidential basis to link him legally to the transaction on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the claim to recover this €39,837 fails.

Doctrinal point: Even in the context of an admitted fraudster and a sympathetic claimant, the court refused to infer liability without sufficient evidence. The decision underscores that liability must be established transaction by transaction, particularly when amounts, dates, and participants differ.

4.4.2 PSC Accountants report and the alleged corporate collapse

The plaintiffs relied on a report from PSC Accountants, with oral evidence from Mr Michael Daly. The report’s stated purpose was limited:

To verify the quantum of funds given to McGinley;
To identify the source of those funds; and
To set out the transfer methodology.

During oral evidence, however, Mr Daly went further. He suggested that the scale of “cash drawings” taken from Teresa Barrett’s company (which funded the investments) was sufficient to cause or contribute to the company’s commercial failure.

Barrett J rejects this extension of the evidence:

The alleged link between the cash drawings and the company’s failure does not appear in the written report.
The opinion exceeds the agreed remit of the expert’s engagement.
The report provides no coherent basis for the causal conclusion beyond including some annual accounts.

Accordingly, the court holds that it has not been established, on the balance of probabilities, that:

The cash drawings taken to fund the investments caused the company’s commercial collapse; or
The collapse is recoverable as a head of loss causally linked to McGinley’s wrongdoing.

Barrett J expressly declines to address the distinct (and serious) corporate law question: whether a director who extracts cash drawings of such magnitude might herself breach her duties to the company. That issue, while hovering in the background, was not argued and is left open.

4.5 Non-pecuniary loss and mental distress

Síle Barrett testified that she has a history of mental ill-health and that the failure of the investment had taken a serious mental toll. The court expresses sympathy (“I am sorry if this is so”) but declines to award any damages for psychiatric or emotional injury.

The reasons:

No medical evidence was adduced to substantiate her mental health condition or any exacerbation linked to McGinley’s actions.
There was no expert opinion on causation, degree of harm, prognosis, or whether the investment failure triggered a recognisable psychiatric injury.

Again, the mantra is repeated: courts proceed on evidence. Without medical reports or psychiatric testimony, the court cannot responsibly attribute mental health deterioration to the defendant’s wrongdoing or quantify such damage.

4.6 Delay, fraudulent concealment and litigation timelines

McGinley suggested that the plaintiffs had delayed in bringing proceedings, presumably with an eye to arguing that the extended delay made an award of interest unfair or oppressive.

Barrett J firmly rejects this:

As late as March 2018, the plaintiffs were still receiving fake correspondence (including forged “solicitor” letters) from McGinley, giving the impression that payment was imminent and that delays were administrative.
The plaintiffs issued their plenary summons in February 2019, well within a reasonable period after the last misrepresentation and the crystallisation of their understanding that they had been defrauded.
The proceedings then moved forward with “relative expedition”.

In this light, any argument that they “slept on their rights” is untenable. The delay was largely caused by McGinley’s continuing deceptive conduct, which belatedly but effectively postponed the point at which the plaintiffs appreciated the need for litigation.

4.7 Interest and netting with criminal payments

The judgment contains a careful approach to interest and overlapping criminal/civil recovery.

4.7.1 Award of interest

Interest is awarded on each contractual sum from the date it fell due:

Teresa Barrett: interest on €90,000 (capital + guaranteed return) from 20 March 2016.
Síle Barrett: interest on each €35,000 tranche from the specified due dates.

Barrett J explicitly considers whether this might be oppressive to McGinley, given his limited means and the suggestion that he has transferred his interest in the family home to his wife. He decides that:

Interest is not oppressive in the circumstances; and
To deny interest would be an “injustice” to the plaintiffs, who were misled for years and deprived of their money and expected returns.

The award of interest serves to:

Compensate for the time-value of money withheld over many years;
Reflect the prolonged period of deception and delayed redress;
Discourage similar fraudulent behaviour by ensuring that wrongdoers do not profit from delay.

4.7.2 Netting off payments and avoiding double recovery

The plaintiffs give an undertaking to “net” any monies due under this judgment against:

The €120,000 already repaid by McGinley; and
Any payments made in the criminal proceedings.

This ensures that the plaintiffs will not obtain double recovery for the same loss. The court notes and accepts this undertaking. The practice reflects a core damages principle: the aim is compensation, not over-compensation.

4.8 The court’s evidence-based approach: “courts must proceed on evidence”

Throughout the judgment, Barrett J repeatedly emphasises that courts must proceed on evidence. This phrase appears as a guiding theme in several contexts:

The alleged presence of McGinley at the bank for the US$50,000 transfer;
The supposed causal connection between cash drawings and the company’s collapse;
Claims about deterioration in mental health;
The scope and reliability of expert evidence.

The message is clear:

Sympathy for victims and moral condemnation of the defendant do not relax the standards of proof in civil litigation.
Plaintiffs must prove each head of loss, and the defendant’s involvement in each transaction, on the balance of probabilities.
Expert witnesses must stay within the remit of their reports and provide solid evidential grounding for any causal opinions.

This is the judgment’s most important procedural principle: even in blatant fraud cases, courts will not “fill in the gaps” without evidence.

5. Precedents and Doctrinal Context

5.1 Absence of explicit case authority

Notably, the judgment does not cite any specific previous decisions. Instead, Barrett J applies foundational principles of Irish contract and civil procedure law implicitly:

Contractual interpretation: reading documents as a whole and giving effect to their commercial purpose, even when poorly drafted.
Penalty clauses doctrine: distinguishing primary obligations (the agreed price or return) from secondary obligations triggered by breach.
Standard and burden of proof: the plaintiffs bear the burden to prove liability and loss on the balance of probabilities.
Expert evidence: experts must stay within the scope of their instructions and reports; unsupported oral expansions carry little weight.
Compensatory damages: aim to restore, not enrich, and must be net of any sums already received in respect of the same harm.

The absence of citations does not mean the decision is isolated. It operates within—and confirms—the mainstream of common law doctrine.

5.2 The penalty rule and guaranteed investment returns

The decision is particularly interesting in its treatment of the €10,000 clause and the repeated €35,000 payments. Modern common law differentiates between:

Primary obligations: what the contract directly requires a party to do (e.g. pay a price, deliver goods, pay an agreed investment return); and
Secondary obligations: what a party must do only if they breach the contract (e.g. pay a specified sum for late payment).

Only secondary obligations are subject to the penalty rule. Here, Barrett J clearly treats the €10,000 and the additional €35,000 payments as primary obligations—the core “price” of the risky investment paid to the plaintiffs, not a sanction for breach.

In practice, this means that even a very generous, one-sided or commercially unwise return promised to investors can be fully enforceable, provided it forms part of the agreed pricing of the investment and is not contingent upon a breach by the payor.

5.3 Default judgment and assessment of damages

Another implicit doctrinal point concerns default judgment. Because McGinley failed initially to appear, liability for wrongful conduct was established. However, default judgment does not automatically fix the quantum of damages or entitle plaintiffs to every sum they claim.

The assessment stage still requires:

Proof of the contractual entitlements (here, the guaranteed returns);
Proof of causation and loss for additional heads of damage (company failure, mental injury);
Scrutiny of the evidence (documents, witnesses, experts).

O'Dowd v McGinley confirms that default judgment is not a blank cheque; plaintiffs must still rigorously prove each component of claimed loss.

6. Complex Concepts Simplified

For non-lawyers, several key legal concepts in the judgment merit explanation.

6.1 “Balance of probabilities”

This is the standard of proof in civil cases. It means:

The court must be satisfied that an event is more likely than not (over 50% probability) to have occurred.
If the evidence is evenly balanced, the claim fails on that issue.

The plaintiffs had to show, on the balance of probabilities, that:

McGinley was involved in the US$50,000 transfer; and
The investments caused the company’s failure and the mental health deterioration.

Because their evidence did not cross this threshold, those heads of claim failed.

6.2 Penalty clause vs guaranteed return

A penalty clause is a contractual provision that imposes an excessive or punitive payment on a party if they breach the contract. Such clauses can be held unenforceable.

A guaranteed return is part of the basic commercial deal: “If you invest €X, I will pay you €Y at time Z.” It is enforceable, even if it turns out to be highly generous or commercially unrealistic, provided:

It is part of the original bargain; and
It is not triggered by a breach of contract.

In this case, the court treated the €10,000 and the repeated €35,000 payments as guaranteed returns, not penalties.

6.3 Contra proferentem rule

The contra proferentem rule is an interpretation principle stating that, where a contractual term is genuinely ambiguous and was drafted by one party, it should be interpreted against that party.

It might have been argued that any ambiguity in the handwritten agreements should be resolved against McGinley (as their author). However, the rule was not argued, and the judge did not feel able to apply it without proper evidence and submissions. Instead, he chose the latest reasonable dates for payment as a fair solution.

6.4 Default judgment and assessment of damages

A default judgment occurs when a defendant fails to respond to court proceedings. The court can then enter judgment on liability. However:

The amount of damages is often left to be assessed at a later hearing, where the plaintiff must still provide evidence of their loss.
The defendant may sometimes participate at the assessment stage, as McGinley did here, particularly to contest quantum, not liability.

6.5 Interest on judgment debts

Courts may order that interest accrue on sums due under a contract from the date they were payable until the date of judgment. This is to compensate the claimant for being kept out of their money. In this judgment:

Interest runs from specific due dates stipulated or inferred from the agreements.
The judge consciously selects later dates to avoid unfairly inflating interest where the contractual timing is unclear.

6.6 Netting and avoiding double recovery

Netting means deducting sums already paid (whether through criminal restitution or voluntary repayment) from the civil award, so that:

The plaintiffs receive full compensation for their loss;
They do not receive more than their total loss (i.e. no double recovery);
The defendant is not made to pay the same debt twice.

7. Likely Impact and Broader Significance

7.1 Fraudulent investment schemes and informal contracts

Many fraud cases involve informal, non-lawyer-drafted “agreements” written on scraps of paper or simple letters. O'Dowd v McGinley demonstrates that:

Irish courts will strive to give such documents legal effect where possible, interpreting them in accordance with their evident commercial purpose.
Investors may successfully enforce very substantial promised returns if those returns form part of the core bargain, even where the promised multiples look extravagant (x3, x7, etc.).
Courts will not rescue a defendant from an unwise promise merely because it was generous or foolish on their part.

7.2 Strengthening the evidence requirement in fraud-related damages

The decision is also a warning for plaintiffs and practitioners:

A criminal conviction and obvious wrongdoing do not automatically translate into civil liability for every loss a plaintiff may feel they have suffered.
Each additional head of loss (e.g., later investments, corporate collapse, psychiatric injury) requires robust, specific evidence of:
- The loss itself; and
- A causal link to the defendant’s wrongful acts.
Expert evidence must be carefully scoped and properly documented; unsupported oral assertions at trial will carry limited weight.

7.3 Penalty doctrine and investment contracts

The judgment adds to the growing body of authority that generous investment returns are not, without more, penalties. It reinforces that:

The penalty rule is confined to secondary obligations arising on breach, not to primary obligations, however draconian or one-sided.
Parties are free to make poor bargains; courts will not routinely “rescue” them unless specific doctrines (e.g. duress, unconscionability) are engaged.

For financial arrangements that straddle the line between loans and investments, the case suggests courts will look to the substance and language of the agreement rather than its label, but once classified as an investment with guaranteed returns, the promised returns are likely to be enforceable.

7.4 Practical lessons for litigants and advisers

For victims: Even where you have criminal restitution, separate civil action may be necessary to recover full contractual returns (with interest), but ensure you can prove:
- Each transfer and its link to the defendant;
- Each additional head of damage with proper expert evidence.
For defendants: Even if you partially repay capital or plead guilty in the criminal sphere, you may still face civil liability for the full measure of promised returns plus interest, especially where you misled investors for years.
For practitioners: When relying on expert evidence, ensure the written report fully captures any causal opinions you intend to put forward; do not rely on oral embellishments at trial.

8. Conclusion

O'Dowd & Ors v McGinley [2025] IEHC 713 is an important illustration of the High Court’s dual commitment to:

Upholding freely agreed contractual obligations, even when drafted informally and even where the returns are generous; and
Insisting on rigorous proof of each element of civil loss, even in the face of admitted criminal fraud.

On the one hand, Barrett J enforces the handwritten investment agreements according to their substance, treating guaranteed returns as primary obligations rather than penalties. He awards substantial contractual sums with interest, reflecting the seriousness of McGinley’s misconduct and the plaintiffs’ long deprivation of their funds.

On the other hand, he refuses to extend liability to the US$50,000 transfer, the alleged corporate collapse, or mental health deterioration without satisfactory evidence. The repeated statement that “courts must proceed on evidence” is more than a rhetorical flourish; it encapsulates the central principle guiding the assessment of fraud-related damages.

The case thus stands as a clear precedent in three respects:

Informal investment agreements will be construed robustly, and guaranteed returns within them are enforceable as primary contractual obligations.
Penalty clause arguments will fail where the impugned sum is part of the core investment bargain rather than a secondary obligation for breach.
Evidence and causation remain indispensable: plaintiffs in fraud cases cannot bypass the normal requirements of proof, however egregious the defendant’s conduct.

For Irish law, O'Dowd v McGinley serves as a practical, fact-rich reaffirmation that contract law’s enforcement of bargains and civil procedure’s insistence on evidence operate hand in hand, even in the emotive context of fraudulent investment schemes.

O'Dowd & Ors v McGinley [2025] IEHC 713: Enforcing Guaranteed Returns in Informal Investment Agreements and the Primacy of Evidence in Fraud Damages