The court case in the Cayman Islands between a Cayman bank and the authorised officer appointed by the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, to inquire into the Ansbacher deposits, could have important implications for other investigations initiated in the slipstream of the McCracken report.

The case was taken by the bank, Ansbacher (Cayman), to secure a ruling from the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands as to whether it should co-operate with a request from the authorised officer, Mr Gerard Ryan for documents and information. Mr Ryan is investigating the Ansbacher deposits for possible breaches of company law.

A number of other investigations into the Ansbacher deposits are currently under way. The Moriarty tribunal is investigating the deposits as part of its inquiry into the finances of the former Taoiseach, Mr Haughey. The Revenue Commissioners are also inquiring into the deposits and it is known that some funds, which still remain in the deposits in Ireland have been frozen pending resolution of the issue of DIRT payments which may exist.

All of the inquiries are interested in any documentation which still exists. However, the bulk of the documentation has been returned to the bank in the Cayman Islands. All that is known to remain here is documentation relating to transactions in a number of accounts in the period since 1992. These are accounts which were moved from the control of Ansbacher (Cayman) in 1992 and came under the control of a company called Hamilton Ross, a Cayman company which was run by the late Mr John Furze. The two accounts holding money for Mr Haughey, which were mentioned during the McCracken tribunal, were Hamilton Ross accounts.

A ruling by the Cayman court in favour of Ansbacher (Cayman) would mean that its representatives here could claim they were precluded by the court's ruling from securing any information sought; that even though the documentation was generated here and part of the business transacted here, its head office was precluded from returning it to this jurisdiction.

Such a ruling would mean the various investigations would not have access to vital information stretching back over almost 20 years. The ruling could have implications for any Revenue proceedings against the bank or a depositor.

In actions by other jurisdictions which involve the Cayman Islands, penalties have been imposed on subsidiaries in those jurisdictions for refusals by the Cayman company to provide information. However, Ansbacher (Cayman) has no assets here. It is owned by the Henry Ansbacher group, which, in turn, is owned by the First National Bank of South Africa. Under various ownerships the Cayman bank has been doing business in Ireland since the mid1970s. Its Cayman island operation was originally owned by a Dublin bank, Guinness & Mahon.

The Revenue Commissioners have no power to seek the attachment of assets held by the group outside this jurisdiction.

Under Cayman law, in order to get information from companies located in the islands, a foreign court or tribunal must apply to the Cayman courts for permission. This was the hurdle at which the McCracken tribunal's attempt to gather information from the Cayman bank foundered. The Grand Court ruled that the McCracken tribunal was not a proper tribunal under Cayman law. The decision was never appealed. The Moriarty tribunal may, in time, have to contest the issue again.