Analysis: The Revenue Commissioners are seeking access to a huge amount of documentation amassed by the Ansbacher inspectors.Colm Keena reports
The Revenue submission to the High Court yesterday indicated that many of the people who hid money in the Ansbacher accounts have yet to come out with their hands up.
The man in charge of the Revenue's Ansbacher inquiry, Mr Donnchadh MacCarthaigh, said that as a result of orders served on Guinness & Mahon, Irish Intercontinental Bank, and the former banker, Mr Padraig Collery, the Revenue has accumulated more than 150,000 documents.
These, coupled with other information, have allowed the Revenue discover a substantial number of people and companies which had dealings with Ansbacher, including persons and entities not among the 121 listed in the Ansbacher inspectors' report.
"Notwithstanding Revenue efforts there are still a number of (coded accounts) and Ansbacher accounts without names the beneficial ownership of which have not been established.
"There are also persons and entities which had transactions or dealings with other subsidiaries of Guinness & Mahon the extent of which are not known to the Revenue."
The Revenue is seeking access to the huge amount of documentation amassed by the Ansbacher inspectors in the course of their two-year inquiry.
This documentation includes sensitive personal and commercial details given to the inspectors by people not subsequently named in the inspectors' report. Indeed one instance was referred to yesterday where an unnamed party submitted a substantial amount of sensitive detail to the inspectors in order to prove that he or she was not an Ansbacher client.
Although it was not mentioned yesterday, another body of information which the Revenue could get access to if the High Court acceded to its request, would be the information supplied to the inspectors by Ansbacher itself, following a court hearing in the Cayman Islands. This information included figures and other details but with clients' names deleted. Compared with information sourced here, it could be of use to the Revenue.
One of the inspectors, barrister Ms Noreen Mackey, told the court by way of affidavit that some of the people investigated by the inspectors were told their affairs would be treated in confidence, except where it was necessary to disclose aspects of their affairs so that the inspectors could do their job. Others operated on a presumption of confidentiality. Many disclosed information involuntarily.
She said that to now disclose information other than that contained in the inspectors' report, would "amount to a violation of the understanding/obligation as to the confidentiality" the inspectors' worked with. Mr Justice Finnegan, president of the High Court, noted that having authorised the inspectors to act as they did, he was now being asked to "go behind them" and change the basis on which they operated.
Counsel for the Revenue, Mr James Connolly, made the point that the information, if disclosed to the Revenue, would be treated in confidence.
He also made the point that the inspectors had been appointed so that something could be done with the fruits of their labour. It would, he argued, be an "absurdity" if the results of an inquiry into tax evasion, could not be used to remedy the injustice revealed.
The Attorney General is represented in the court as are the inspectors and Ansbacher Cayman. No person whose affairs were investigated by the inspectors are represented.
Mr Connolly said the public interest is served by wrongdoing being pursued. However the counter argument is being made that the work of future inspectors will be made more difficult if people cannot deal with them knowing that information disclosed will be used solely for the purposes of the inspectors' inquiries.
