Revenue uncovers more names linked to Ansbacher

THE Revenue Commissioners have uncovered a substantial list of additional individuals and business interests linked to Ansbacher Cayman Ltd.

Over 210 names were listed in the Ansbacher report. However, in the High Court yesterday, the Revenue Commissioners said despite their best efforts and use of their statutory powers there were still a number of codes and Ansbacher accounts without names. The owners of the accounts have not been identified.

Mr James Connolly SC for the commissioners yesterday applied to the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan for an order allowing the commissioners access to documents gathered by the inspectors but not included in their report. The documents are currently lodged in court.

The application is being opposed by the Ansbacher bank and the inspectors. Ms Noreen Macken, one of the inspectors claimed that to disclose information beyond that contained in the report would breach an undertaking or obligation of confidentiality.

Mr Connolly said his clients said as a result of the way Ansbacher operated the Revenue suffered large shortfalls in the amount of revenue which would otherwise be recoverable from individual bank deposit holders of the bank.

The Revenue had also suffered a substantial information deficit - which was still continuing - because of the method used by the bank which was effectively driven towards widespread and concentrated tax evasion on the part of depositors of the bank.

Counsel said the whole shape of the legislation (which set up the investigation) envisaged not just investigations under the directions of the court and the provision of an inspector's report, but also the use of the material obtained.

He said the legislation provided for the use of testimony given by individuals under investigation by the inspectors, in the course of subsequent civil proceedings.

Mr Connolly said Ansbacher con the other hand contended there was a public interest in that the inspectors conducting the investigations ought to have available to them full and frank disclosure and co-operation of individuals who were summoned to assist the inspectors.

But the bank was claiming that frankness and co-operation might not always be expected if there was a perception in some way that the documentation could be transferred to the commissioners or in some other way was to percolate to the Revenue authorities or to other State agencies.

Mr Connolly said the position adopted by the bank was flawed. All of the legal authorities indicated there was a public interest in identifying wrongdoing disclosure to the appropriate authorities and in certain circumstances revealing it also to the public.

In an affidavit Donnachadh MacCarthaigh principal inspector of taxes in the special projects team said since October 1999 the Revenue was conducting an investigation into the tax affairs of taxpayers who were deposit holders in Ansbacher accounts.

As a result of revenue inquiries and investigations he formed the view that many Ansbacher account holders were taxpayers who had failed to comply with the provisions of the Taxes Acts.

The hearing continues today.