There has been a sea-change in political attitudes towards the Ansbacher accounts since the establishment of terms of reference for the Moriarty Tribunal by the Government, last September.
The initial "cover-up" response, fuelled in part by official warnings of a flight of capital from the State, rising interest rates and possible damage to the Financial Services Centre, has given way to a more considered approach within both Government and opposition.
There is a growing acceptance that names must be named in order to protect the integrity of the democratic system and to reassure the electorate.
The terms of reference set by Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats for the Moriarty Tribunal asked it to inquire into "the source of money in the Ansbacher accounts for the benefit of Mr Charles Haughey, or any other Minister or holder of public office". It also asked it - on the urgings of the Labour Party - to "make broad recommendations for enhancing the role of the Central Bank and for protecting the State's tax base from fraud or evasion". But that was as far as it went. There was no specific requirement for the tribunal to name the beneficial owners of the £38 million accounts, even where obvious wrongdoing had been involved.
And that is one of the chief flaws of the tribunal system: it may investigate, it may report and draw conclusions but it may not find that criminal activity was engaged in by named individuals. The tribunal is not a court of law and cannot adjudicate on guilt.
It is a "Catch 22" situation. Mr Justice McCracken found £38 million in the Ansbacher accounts. But he was not able to say that people were breaking the law. Instead, he reported that a number of depositors "might have been engaged in international business and been facilitated by accounts which didn't require exchange control permission" and that others "would have deposited the monies in this way for other motives".
The McCracken Tribunal's inability to call a spade a spade was seized on by the Government as reason why the Moriarty Tribunal could not investigate the legality of the Ansbacher accounts. The champion of "zero tolerance", John O'Donoghue, told the Dail before Christmas that because "prima facie" evidence of wrongdoing had not been produced by Mr Justice McCracken, the Government could not ask Mr Justice Moriarty to examine the accounts.
Even as the Minister for Justice held the Fianna Fail line on Ansbacher, the tide had come around behind him and was lapping at the Government's defences.
Over in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Mary Harney had decided to widen the scope of an inquiry into matters involving Celtic Helicopters, run by Ciaran Haughey, a son of the former Taoiseach. An interim report to the Tanaiste from an authorised Departmental officer, Gerard Ryan, caused the leader of the Progressive Democrats to seek the kind of evidence that her colleague, Mr O'Donoghue, said did not exist.
On December 8th, on foot of the interim report, Ms Harney gave Mr Ryan fresh instructions and powers under the Companies Act. He was authorised to investigate possible wrongdoing involving the Ansbacher accounts and other banks in general, including issues relating to the tax code, exchange controls and criminal complicity in offences.
Although the Minister is prohibited from publishing the findings of the expanded investigation, she could refer its findings to the Revenue Commissioners, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Central Bank or the Moriarty Tribunal. She could eventually blow the whole thing wide open by appointing an inspector to report to the High Court.
Guinness & Mahon Bank, where the Ansbacher deposits were held from the 1970s to the 1980s, supplied details of the accounts to Mr Ryan on request. But Irish Intercontinental Bank, where the deposits were held from 1989 to 1991, has challenged the motivations behind the new inquiry in the High Court, although it is expected to decide to comply before the case comes for hearing today. Yesterday, in an unrelated legal action, Mr Charles Haughey failed in an attempt to discover details of a letter sent by the Moriarty Tribunal to politicians. But his fight to prevent exposure of his personal financial affairs within the tribunal goes on.
As the legal battles intensify and information tumbles into the public domain, the political battle lines are being redrawn.
Fine Gael has hardened its position and now agrees a common position with the Labour Party, Democratic Left and the Green Party. When the Dail meets next Wednesday, it will table a motion seeking to broaden the terms of reference of the Moriarty Tribunal. After that, anything could happen.