Legal advisers to the authorised officer appointed by the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, to inquire into the Ansbacher deposits, are considering the next move he can make in his attempt to gain access to the secret banking files.

This follows the disclosure that Ansbacher (Cayman) which holds documentation believed to be central to identifying the beneficiaries of the Ansbacher deposits, does not intend to voluntarily comply with the mandate of the inspector, Mr Gerard Ryan.

The McCracken tribunal heard that "memorandum accounts" which listed the depositors who had money in the Ansbacher deposits, and the lodgements and withdrawals they made over the years, were kept by the late Mr Des Traynor.

Mr Traynor kept the records in his Cement Roadstone offices on Merrion Square. The former banker, Mr Padraig Collery, also seems to have kept some records and to have been involved in the upkeep of the accounts.

Separate records were kept by the two Irish banks, Guinness & Mahon and Irish Intercontinental. These recorded money going into and out of the deposits, and how much they held at any one time. However it seems they did not list who the true beneficiaries of the deposits were.

When Mr Traynor died in 1994, Mr Collery and the late Cayman banker, Mr John Furze, went through the records which had been kept by Mr Traynor. Some were destroyed. Some were kept in Dublin by Mr Collery. Others were brought back to the Cayman Islands and are now thought to be in the possession of Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd.

In 1992 some accounts were taken out of the control of Ansbacher (Cayman) and put under the control of a Cayman company controlled by Mr Furze and called Hamilton Ross. Accounts holding money for the former Taoiseach, Mr Haughey, were among those moved.

After Mr Ryan was appointed by the Tanaiste to inquire into the Ansbacher deposits, he issued orders for documents on Guinness & Mahon and Irish Intercontinental, Ansbacher (Cayman) and Hamilton Ross. The two Dublin banks have handed over their documents and Mr Collery has also handed over documents relating to the Hamilton Ross accounts since they were moved from the control of Ansbacher (Cayman).

An order was served on Ansbacher (Cayman) on January 14th, seeking "all books and records in respect of the trade carried on by Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd in Ireland". The order was served on the company by way of the Dublin legal firm, A & L Goodbody.

Ansbacher (Cayman) approached the courts in the Cayman Islands. It sought a ruling under that jurisdiction's confidentiality laws. These laws outline when a court can give, or refuse to give, permission to a Cayman company to divulge confidential information. If the court grants permission it is only that. It is not an order to do so.

In the event, the Cayman court decided not to accept jurisdiction for the case. The bank had said it believed the order from Mr Ryan had not been properly served. The judge decided that this issue would have to be sorted out, by the Irish courts, before he could accept jurisdiction under the Cayman confidentiality laws.

Essentially he decided there was no point in ruling on a request if that request did not properly exist in law. It is now up to the bank to decide if it will question Mr Ryan's order in the Irish courts.

Ansbacher (Cayman) also told the Cayman court it believed Mr Ryan's directive and Ms Harney's warrant appointing him were invalid in Irish law. They also said they had never carried on the alleged banking business in Ireland. They further said that even if the Cayman court granted them permission to hand over the documents sought, they would not do so.

It is possible that Ansbacher (Cayman) may bring the matter to a hearing before the Irish courts. If the case went against them they could then return to the Cayman courts and again seek a direction under that jurisdiction's confidentiality laws. The bank would be hoping the Cayman court would rule that they could not release the information sought. However if the court granted permission for the bank to release the information, the bank could simply decide not to.

All that could take some time, and not get the authorised officer, Mr Ryan, very far. A possible alternative would be for him to seek an order from the Cayman courts instructing Ansbacher (Cayman) to hand over the files.

The McCracken tribunal sought such an order from the Cayman courts but was unsuccessful. The Cayman courts ruled that the Tribunal was not a properly constituted court or tribunal under Cayman law.

The Government may be hoping that the Cayman bank's parent group, First National Bank of South Africa, can be embarrassed into pressurising the Cayman bank to co-operate with Mr Ryan.