Ansbacher account-holders are almost in clear barring accidents

The 15 or so wealthy Irish citizens whose offshore deposits in the Ansbacher accounts came to light when Mr Justice McCracken investigated the affairs of Ben Dunne, Michael Lowry and Charles Haughey are almost in the clear.

There are a few minor hurdles ahead. The Central Bank's report on breaches of exchange-control regulations may raise further embarrassing questions for the Government and for Charlie McCreevy. And Mr Justice Blayney's parallel investigation into the behaviour of members of the accountancy profession might yet produce a whistle-blower.

But you shouldn't hold your breath. Barring unforeseen accidents, the public will never know the identity of these few super-rich. And the possible use of offshore accounts to evade taxes and exchange controls will never be penalised.

Public disgrace and formal sanctions may be visited on the politicians and professional people who were funded, or employed, by those wealthy individuals. But a line has been drawn in the sand to protect the big players.

Mr Justice McCracken commented on "the ingenious system" which allowed them to have their money offshore, with no record of their deposits in Ireland, and yet receive an interest rate which was only one-eighth of 1 per cent less than they would get in an Irish bank.

A number of the depositors, he suggested, might have been engaged in international business. They would have been greatly facilitated by holding sterling accounts abroad which did not require exchange-control permission to operate. As for the others, Judge McCracken said, they would have "deposited the monies in this way from other motives".

It could hardly be clearer. Tax evasion was one of the games. And what was the Government's response? It promised the Revenue Commissioners would investigate these matters and penalise any guilty persons. Almost as an afterthought, it added that any new powers required by the Revenue would be provided.

It was an exercise in balderdash. The Minister for Finance knew perfectly well the Revenue Commissioners did not have the powers to investigate the Ansbacher accounts.

Under the 1983 Finance Act, the High Court must be satisfied of certain things before it permits the Revenue to investigate such deposits. The name of the individual concerned must be provided, along with the name of the bank and evidence that tax returns were unsatisfactory. A trawling exercise is not allowed. So there was no chance of a successful prosecution.

Mr McCreevy was playing both ends against the middle. And there appeared to be a lot of indirect pressure from financial interests.

The opposition parties report that Fianna Fail Ministers lobbied in private against any investigation of the Ansbacher accounts, quoting advice from the Department of Finance that such a development could result in an outflow of funds and a possible rise in interest rates. They also spoke of the negative impact such an investigation might have on operations at the Dublin Financial Services Centre.

It was a mirror-image of the behind-the-curtain-speak that ministers and some civil servants engaged in before the establishment of the beef tribunal in 1992. At that time widespread fraud within the beef industry was tacitly defended on the grounds that all EU companies were at it and that cleaning up the Irish industry would place it at a commercial disadvantage. We all know where that led to.

In spite of that, the terms of the new Moriarty tribunal were drawn up to explicitly exclude any investigation of the legality and ownership of the Ansbacher accounts. Instead, the tribunal was invited by Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats to report on whether changes should be made in the tax law to protect the State from fraud or tax-evasion through the use of offshore accounts.

Attempts by the Labour Party, Democratic Left and the Green Party to publicly identify the owners of accounts who had broken exchange-control regulations or evaded tax were voted down. Fine Gael's efforts to have the tribunal identify them privately to the Revenue Commissioners also failed.

Here was real financial muscle in action. As to why the Government was so determined to prevent an investigation, a former Fine Gael minister offered a one-word explanation: "fear". Of what, he couldn't or wouldn't say. But he did not accept the "outflow of money" explanation at face value. That was a certain recipe for future money-laundering and shyster economics.

Mr McCreevy has received a report from the Central Bank on its investigations concerning exchange-control regulations and the Ans bacher accounts.

Although the bank - as the agent for the Department - was specifically asked by the Minister to look at matters concerning Michael Lowry and Charles Haughey, it took it upon itself to cast the net wider.

The Central Bank looked at the Ansbacher accounts in general. But it is understood that, like the Revenue Commissioners, it was stymied by a lack of names and addresses.

An inquiry into the professional conduct of those accountants named in the McCracken report opened yesterday under Mr Justice Blayney. The Association of Chartered Accountants in Ireland has been given the power, under law, to regulate its affairs and to penalise or expel members who engage in, or facilitate, wrongdoing.

But its response to the beef tribunal findings, when it failed to impose severe sanctions on certain companies and individuals, led to dismay within and outside the profession. No report was published.

Following the beef tribunal report, the then minister for finance, Ruairi Quinn, proposed legal changes which would oblige accountants and financial advisers to blow the whistle on corrupt practices to the Revenue Commissioners. The initiative provoked an outcry from members of the legal profession who argued that this struck at the heart of client-solicitor relationships. They threatened Supreme Court action on constitutional grounds. The measure was watered down.

This time, the Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Ms Harney, is pushing for professional transparency. She has taken powers to ensure that an observer from her Department can attend the disciplinary hearings of the accountancy body. And a transcript of all evidence must be supplied.

There is little or no chance the accountants concerned will name their clients in the course of the proceedings. But one can live in hope.

If the accountancy body fails to take action to vindicate its own rules and protect the professional standards of its members, the State will have to step in and do the job. If self-regulation does not work, such matters will have to be referred to a public forum.