Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Jun 1998

Vol. 493 No. 3

Written Answers. - Ansbacher Accounts.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

35 Mr. Gilmore asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made to date by the officer she appointed under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990, to investigate a number of companies arising from the Ansbacher account disclosures; the position regarding the legal challenge to the inspector being taken in the Cayman Islands; the response, if any, she has received to her appeal to Ansbacher Cayman Limited to reconsider its stance of non co-operation with the inspector's inquiries; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15783/98]

Jan O'Sullivan

Question:

51 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress, if any, including total costs and a breakdown of those costs incurred to date in relation to the findings of the inspector appointed to investigate the activities of the Ansbacher accounts; the action, if any, proposed to be taken as a result of the findings; if she will send the inspectors report to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15922/98]

Thomas P. Broughan

Question:

62 Mr. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when she will publish the names of all the Ansbacher account holders who have been identified by her appointed inspector. [15905/98]

Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Ms Harney)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 35, 51 and 62 together.

Since I last replied to questions on this matter on 26 May last, I have received information from the authorised officer which has led to my appointing him on 9 June last to examine the books and documents of Kentford Securities Limited., an Irish-registered company which was dissolved in May, 1995. While the nature of this information must remain confidential for the present, I can advise the House that in accordance with legal advice, the basis for Mr. Ryan's appointment to the company comprehended the circumstances indentified in paragraphs (a), (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (f) of section 19(2) of the Act.

It is not possible for me to be more specific about the nature of this information at this time. Section 21 of the Companies Act, 1990, imposes severe constraints on the publication or disclosure of information received on foot of investigations like those of Mr. Ryan which are being conducted under section 19 of the 1990 Act.

I have received no response of any kind to my appeal to Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited. to reconsider its stance of non co-operation with Mr. Ryan's investigation of its books and documents. Some indication of the company's position may become known shortly when the Grand Court formally settles the order confirming its earlier decision. The House can be assured that I will be keeping in close touch with developments.

The investigation costs incurred by Mr. Ryan which have been borne by my Department amount to about £6,965 to date. These comprise £4,530 for travel and subsistence, £1,552 for document search and retrieval costs and £874 for certain incidental expenses. These figures take no account of the normal salary and related costs of Mr. Ryan and his staff or the staffing costs of my Department's company law administration section which is supporting his investigations, as these costs would be covered by my Department's Vote regardless of whether Mr. Ryan's investigations were taking place. The legal costs of Mr. Ryan's investigations are likewise excluded, as they are borne by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.