More than two years ago, on September 23rd, 1999, three High Court inspectors were appointed to inquire into one of the most closely guarded secrets of the Haughey era - the Ansbacher deposits.

Their report, the most hotly awaited official publication since the McCracken report, is now understood to be all but complete.

It is expected Mr Justice Johnson, who appointed the inspectors following an application by the Tβnaiste, Ms Harney, will be given a copy early next year.

Some of those close to the case have speculated that Ansbacher Cayman - the Cayman Islands bank that managed companies and funds on behalf of Ansbacher clients - may be allowed to look at the report before it is made public, so that it might prepare its response.

How this might work is not clear, although it would presumably require the permission of Mr Justice Johnson, perhaps by way of an order made in camera. Recently, there have been several in-camera hearings involving the inspectors before Mr Justice Johnson.

Once the report is presented in open court to Mr Justice Johnson, he will decide if it should be published. Given the political context of their inquiry it is unlikely that the inspectors prepared their report with anything other than an intention that it be published. But the decision on publication rests with the court.

Because of changes to company law since the inspectors were appointed, the court will not give a copy of the report to Ms Harney but will instead give it to Mr Paul Appleby, director of the newly established Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE).

Under changes introduced by the Company Law Enforcement Act, Mr Justice Johnson has new powers to pass the report to various competent enforcement agencies such as the Central Bank, the Revenue Commissioners and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr Appleby - whose staff will by early next year include garda∅, solicitors and accountants - will examine the report for findings of possible criminal breaches of the Companies Acts. Where there are such findings he may immediately initiate criminal prosecutions. The garda∅ seconded to his office have powers of arrest and can detain suspects for up to 12 hours.

Recent changes in the law in relation to the statute of limitations mean that prosecutions can be taken up to three years after an offence comes to light. Formerly, the time after which a prosecution could no longer be taken was estimated from the time the suspected offence was committed.

With tax evasion thought to have been the main raison d'Ωtre of the Ansbacher deposits, the report will be of particular interest to the Revenue. It has already been conducting its own, parallel investigation and the publication of the report will be a major development in that context. The Central Bank will look at the report from the point of view of breaches of the laws it is charged with overseeing.

The Revenue inquiry has, to date, led to only a modest amount of money being paid on account. Some tax experts are concluding from this that holders of accounts are going to fight against tax assessments and accusations of impropriety.

Some have said that if the late Mr Des Traynor, the main architect of the deposits, was still alive, he might be able to put up a strong, technical defence for the legality of this secret banking system.

The inspectors were appointed under Section 8 of the Companies Acts 1990, which gives them considerable powers. The record of what happens following the production of the reports written by inspectors appointed under Section 8 is not impressive. No prosecution has ever resulted from one.

Accountant Mr Aidan Barry and barrister Mr Ciaran Foley SC investigated the Greencore affair as Section 8 inspectors appointed in 1991. They investigated dealings in Sugar Distributors, a company that distributed the products of Irish Sugar (now Greencore). A 49 per cent stake in the distribution company was bought by Irish Sugar/Greencore for £11.4 million (€14.47 million), having earlier changed hands for £3.25 million. The ownership of the distribution company at the time of this second sale formed the core of the inspectors' inquiries.

The report was highly critical of former Greencore executive Mr Chris Comerford, whom the inspectors said was "not fit to be a director of a company in the State". At the time of its publication in March 1992, Mr Comerford said the report was "subjective and unfair". He now works for Fyffes in Britain. A Garda inquiry into the affair took two years and led to a six-volume report but no prosecutions.

The other time Section 8 inspectors were appointed was in relation to County Glen, the former Glen Abbey clothing company. Mr Frank Clarke SC investigated a fraud that cost the company £1 million. Mr Clarke found that Mr John Carway had engineered the takeover of County Glen with the company's money and then distributed its remaining assets for his own benefit. Mr Carway contested the findings and said no money from County Glen had ever made its way into any company associated with him or his family.

The inspectors currently investigating National Irish Bank - retired judge Mr Justice Blayney and accountant Tom Grace - were also appointed under Section 8. They have yet to complete their inquiries. The inspector who investigated the Telecom affair, solicitor Mr John Glackin, was appointed under Section 14 of the Companies Acts 1990.