Revenue in court plea on Ansbacher inquiry files

Applications by the Revenue Commissioners and the Director of Corporate Enforcement for access to documents gathered by the inspectors into the affairs of Ansbacher Cayman Limited but not included in their recent report, are expected to be heard by the High Court on November 5th.

The court was also told yesterday by Mr Shane Murphy SC, for the inspectors, that the office of the inspectors is now closed and their staff reassigned. A solicitor would continue to deal with matters related to the inspectorate.

The president of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, yesterday heard a number of applications arising out of the recent publication of the inspectors' report, including the applications for access to unpublished documents.

The Revenue says these documents would be "of immeasurable assistance" in its investigations into identified Ansbacher clients and in establishing the identities of other Ansbacher clients.

Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for the Director, said his application may be related to particular documents for particular reasons.

Mr Feichin McDonagh SC, for the Attorney General (AG), said his client was supporting the applications and considered release of the documents was in the public interest.

Mr Maurice Collins, for Ansbacher Cayman Limited, said he would be opposing the applications and would argue release of the documents was not in the public interest.

The inspectors were made a notice party to the applications by the Revenue and Director. Mr Murphy said the inspectors' concern was that the broader issues raised by the application should also be addressed but they did not consider this was a task for the inspectors.

At an earlier hearing, Mr Justice Finnegan said he believed the applications raised public policy issues which might perhaps be best addressed by the AG.

Mr McDonagh said yesterday the AG's view was that the public interest would be served by the Revenue getting the documents sought. The AG would have a difficulty making submissions to the contrary.

The judge said he appreciated the AG was in a difficult position and would not want to be opposing applications made on behalf of State agencies.

Mr James Connolly SC, for the Revenue, said issues to be addressed at the hearing of the application would include the scope of the court's discretion under Section 12 of the Companies Act to order the release of documents held by inspectors and whether the court has an inherent discretion to order the disclosure of documents.

Mr Collins said another issue was whether the disclosure of the documents sought would be contrary to the public interest in relation to the investigations of companies.

Mr McDonagh said the AG would not like it to be taken that Ansbacher Cayman Limited was representing the public interest in any way. He would take further instructions from the AG on the issues raised by the judge.

A separate application by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform concerning the costs of the inspectorate is also expected to be heard in the next law term which begins on October 1st.

The court has heard the Minister considers that Ansbacher Cayman Limited should bear the primary responsibility for the costs of the investigation. The Minister may also seek costs from a number of corporate bodies.

Later yesterday, Mr Murphy asked the judge to direct publication, via an addendum to the inspectors' published report, of correspondence between the inspectors and three persons named in the report as Ansbacher account holders - Mr Ray Carroll, Mr Jack Stakelum and Mr John Murphy.

Counsel said the inspectors had said they would publish the correspondence as appendices to the report. However, due to an oversight, this material was not included and the inspectors were asking that it be published now.

Mr Justice Finnegan directed that the material be published as an addendum to the report.