The four-day appeal concluded earlier today (Wednesday) after lawyers for IBRC, formerly AIB, told the five-judge panel that it was "utterly fanciful" to suggest the evidence they had provided does not prove Mr Quinn Jnr was involved in a 500,000 euro payment to a Ukranian woman as part of an asset-stripping plan.
In all IBRC's legal team brought forward around 30 pieces of circumstantial evidence over the course of the appeal hearing.
The bank's legal representatives outlined what they saw as valid reasons behind the High Court's original decision to find him in contempt.
Mr Quinn Jnr has remained at the Training Unit of Mountjoy Prison since his imprisonment in July.
His lawyers say there was insufficient evidence to find him in contempt.
Furthermore they argue his "indefinite" incarceration went far beyond a conviction for contempt on one issue.
They said there was nothing in the Bank's new evidence at the appeal to support his continued imprisonment.
And they argued he had been ordered to comply with several coercive orders which he had no involvement with nor any power over.
They claimed the 33-year-old had been made "hostage to the chieftan", his father, in order to place pressure on him to co-operate with IBRC.