The document known as "A note to John Furze" was used in the High Court in September to support the argument that Ansbacher (Cayman) marketed its services in the State as a way of hiding undeclared funds from the Revenue Commissioners.
The document's existence was revealed during a case where the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, successfully applied to the courts for the appointment of three inspectors to investigate the Ansbacher deposits. It was stated during the case that the document was "apparently prepared in 1983 by a senior member of the financial services community, not a banker, in Dublin following discussions with Mr Furze".
At the time the authorised officer who had investigated Ansbacher (Cayman), civil servant Mr Gerard Ryan, believed the document had been written by Mr Kyran McLaughlin, a partner with Davy Stockbrokers. Someone with access to Mr McLaughlin's personal files gave the document to Mr Ryan.
The court was told it was "clear from the subsequent discussion (in the note) of the pros and cons of setting up a discretionary trust in the Cayman Islands that the Revenue authorities in Ireland and possibly elsewhere were a primary motivation for the secretive arrangements discussed in the note".
The 36-page document, of which five pages are headings, is structured so that the outline of how different aspects of the scheme would work are each followed by questions which the author wishes to put to the late Mr Furze. One section is headed: "Towards minimising the footprints". It is clear from the document that Mr Ray McLoughlin had discussed the matter with persons other than Mr Furze.
The preface reads: "John, I have set down blurb representing my understanding of the position in relation to the formation of a discretionary trust arrangement. This material is based primarily on my discussion with yourself yesterday but also to a secondary degree on an earlier discussion with some mutual acquaintances of ours. I took you up on your offer of talking to you by phone so that I could check out my understanding of this overall matter and put specific questions to you."
The document goes to describe the nature of discretionary trusts, how a client can instruct the trustees, and the nature of trust deeds. "Sometimes, instead of putting down the names of himself and his family, a client will use nom-de-plumes and, in practice, this is acceptable to the trustees," the document reads. The author then writes: "I would like to talk a little more about how the nom-de-plumes arrangement works."
The document states that usually instructions are given to trustees by phone, though there would probably be some conduit between the client and the trustees "such as Mr X(1)". Mr X(1) was identified in the High Court in September as most probably being the late Mr Des Traynor. The document also states that in the case of "a Dublin situation, the only parties who would be aware of a trust arrangement would be X(1), X(2), JF and perhaps 3 or 4 of his officers". In the High Court these codes and initials were said to stand for Mr Traynor, Mr Padraig Collery, and Mr Furze.
Mr McLoughlin wrote: "Am I right in understanding that there is no record or note of any kind in relation to any aspect of a trust arrangement in the offices in Dublin?"
The advantages of the proposed scheme, according to the note, include the fact that: "Because assets held in a discretionary trust are legally not at all under the control and ownership of the client, it is therefore factually and legally correct to state that the client does not own any of the assets held by the discretionary trust and is therefore not in breach of exchange control regulations. The bank in Ireland can swear to the Revenue as to the non-connection in the legal sense between any parties it might be inquiring into, and any legal trust."
