THE emergence of the Ansbacher deposits at the tribunal on Monday led to calls for the terms of reference of the tribunal to be extended. The chairman of the tribunal, Mr Justice McCracken, yesterday gave a cogent account of why he was opposed to such a move.
It is clear, however, that issues have arisen from the discovery of the deposits that could usefully be investigated in the public interest - if not at this tribunal, then in some other way.
In the process of seeking to trace payments by Ben Duane to Charles Haughey, the tribunal team came across offshore bank accounts containing up to Pounds 40 million, owned by various Irish residents.
A very common reason for putting money offshore is to avoid payment of tax. The discovery therefore of up to Pounds 40 million floating offshore would have been expected to arouse the anger of PAYE taxpayers. Fine Gael and Labour moved quickly to tap into that anger, proposing to extend the tribunal's remit.
Fine Gael suggested the tribunal should now investigate the beneficial ownership of this offshore money in so far as it related to Oireachtas members, their relatives, connected persons, political parties, public servants or other public representatives. Labour's proposal was similar, while others suggested the sources of the money should be investigated, whether or not it was owned by politicians.
But yesterday, the opposition parties withdrew their proposals after Mr Justice McCracken delivered a comprehensive rebuttal of the argument for extending his remit. The tribunal had come across information and documents which turned out to be irrelevant to its inquiries. It had been made clear to everyone that such information would be treated confidentially, and the tribunal could not go back on this commitment.
Should they be asked to breach this commitment, "I and the tribunal legal team believe that it would be ethically improper and perhaps impossible for us to participate in any extended inquiry," said Mr Justice McCracken.
His statement left open the possibility of the Oireachtas deciding, once this tribunal has reported, to take further steps, including the establishment of a further tribunal.
But what would it inquire into The Pounds 30 million to Pounds 40 million washing about in the Ansbacher deposits is just the offshore money controlled by one accountant in one bank. It could justly be argued by those with secret money hidden behind codes in Guinness and Mahon that it is unfair to single them out for public investigation.
This tribunal team has surprised with the progress it has made in tracing secret money through a maze of bank accounts around the world into confidential accounts. Presumably its forensic skills could be used to find out more than simply the payments made by Mr Duane to Mr Haughey.
Mr Justice McCracken yesterday corrected reports - not in The Irish Times - that the tribunal had found that Mr Haughey was the only politician who was the beneficial owner of money in the Ansbacher deposits. The tribunal was only aware of the identity of some of the beneficial owners of the money, he said. So while it has no evidence that there are other politicians holding money there, this could be the case.
And if, as the Revenue Commissioners believe, a large amount of offshore money is hidden away for tax avoidance purposes, it could be considered to be in the public interest to have a much broader investigation into how much of it there is, who owns it and whether any tax is owing on it.
We also got a new insight this week into how money is put into an offshore account. The idea that a gentleman in a pin-striped suit takes a light plane to the Isle of Man with a suitcase of cash on his lap appears to be outdated. Money can be "offshore" in a Dublin bank, so long as it is in the account of a foreign bank.
As Mr Justice McCracken said yesterday, when he has produced his report, "the Oireachtas will be in a much better position to judge what steps it wishes to take, which steps are entirely a matter for the Oireachtas and not for the tribunal".