The Tánaiste and Director of Corporate Enforcement want the Ansbacher report published in full. Colm Keena reports
Because of how the High Court inspectors investigating Ansbacher Cayman operated, most depositors still living and named in the inspectors' report know what the report says about them.
The inspectors, when they had reached their conclusions about the various parties they encountered during their inquiry, wrote to those about whom they were going to make adverse findings, to give them a chance to respond. That process has been under way since late last year and came to an end earlier this year. In the High Court recently, two people due to be named in the report sought unsuccessfully to make a case anonymously against being named. They argued that if they could not make their case anonymously, there was no point in proceeding with the case. When the judge ruled against them on the anonymity issue, the unnamed pair withdrew.
This central problem still exists for anyone seeking to prevent publication of their name in the report. One case that the two people mentioned above wanted to make was that the court acted outside its powers when it asked the inspectors not only to investigate the activities here of Ansbacher Cayman Ltd, but also to name its customers. This, the pair wanted to argue, would go further than is allowed by the Companies Act under which the inspectors were appointed.
During his application on behalf of the anonymous duo, Mr Michael Collins SC said that to be named as an Ansbacher depositor was to be associated with the worst aspects of Irish society in the 1970s and 1980s.
This fate now confronts about 200 people and companies unless someone can come up with an argument in court against publication of the report in full.
The Tánaiste, Ms Harney, who received a copy of the report yesterday, has said she will be asking the court to publish the report in full. The Director of Corporate Enforcement, Mr Paul Appleby, the only other person to be given a copy of the report, has also said he wants publication in full.
The people to be named in the report include a veritable who's who of Irish society from the 1970s and 1980s. A lot of reputations could be destroyed. People have engaged the most well-respected and best-paid legal minds in the State to seek ways of preventing their names being included in the report. Many, if not all, have failed.
PUBLICATION of the report may be delayed if some parties come forward with last- minute legal arguments but, given the importance of the report and the legitimate public interest in its content, it is hard to imagine any such argument being successful. Publication is the main issue for most depositors. However, the report and the inspectors' inquiries come with financial implications for many. Much of the money in the deposits was not declared to the Revenue and the inspectors' inquiries were in parallel to one by the Revenue.
Also, the court has the power to direct that some or all of the costs arising from the investigation into Ansbacher Cayman be retrieved from any company dealt with in the report. The inspectors may have a recommendation in this regard in their report. The court may also seek recovery of some of the costs of the inquiry from any person who is subsequently convicted of an offence in a prosecution instituted as a result of the inspectors' inquiries.
The court will give consideration to forwarding the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to allocating responsibility to Mr Appleby in this regard. The terms of reference given to the inspectors included asking them to identify laws which may have been broken by Ansbacher, its agents here and "third parties". This means customers of the bank's operations here may be identified as having possibly committed particular offences. The main issues here are: the breaking of the exchange control regulations which existed up to the early 1990s and concerned the movement of money to outside the jurisdiction; tax evasion; and the facilitation of tax evasion.
