MORE THAN two million documents have now been seized in the investigation by the Director of Corporate Enforcement into the affairs of Anglo Irish Bank, it has emerged at the High Court.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly was told yesterday that extensive documents had been seized from the bank last week and he made an order, on consent of Anglo, relating to how those documents are to be retained and how issues of any legal professional privilege which may attach to a small number of documents may be addressed.

The judge was dealing with an application by Paul O’Higgins SC, for the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), relating to material seized.

Shane Murphy SC, for Anglo, said it was agreeable to the order sought by the director.

The court heard the ODCE had already taken measures to secure electronic data seized from various premises. However a small number of documents will not be examined until issues concerning any possible claim of legal privilege are addressed.

The director is also not at this stage seeking to formalise the appointment of a person who has been examining documents in light of possible claims of legal professional privilege, Mr O’Higgins told the judge.

Mr Justice Kelly noted that amending companies legislation was enacted last July to address legal issues relating to search warrants and claims of legal and professional privilege and the ODCE’s court application arose in light of that. He said evidence from the ODCE had been produced concerning its extensive investigation into the affairs of Anglo.

The general nature of that investigation was into possible offences under the Companies Acts involving the giving by a company of financial assistance for the purchase of its own shares.

The director had earlier this year made an unprecedented application to the court to approve a scheme devised in co-operation with the bank aimed at addressing issues of legal professional privilege relating to electronic information at bank premises. The scheme involved a retired judge inspecting certain documents.

Mr Justice Kelly ruled there was no authority under which the court could give its imprimatur to the proposed scheme as it would effectively amount to the court approving an arbitration procedure and “sub-contracting” out the jurisdiction of the court to express an opinion on whether privilege attracted to a document.