The appointment of High Court inspectors to investigate the Ansbacher accounts could not have come at a better time for the Tanaiste, Mary Harney. Although she considered it otherwise, the publicity over her summer holiday arrangements in the south of France had damaged her squeaky-clean image.

Now the backroom officials in the Progressive Democrats could well start drafting their slogan for the next general election. It would not be difficult to assume they will think along the lines of a wording linking the Tanaiste with an ability to bust sleaze in Irish society.

For almost two decades those benefiting from the Ansbacher accounts were untouchable. Until the McCracken tribunal the regulatory authorities had not even known of the existence of this arrangement to evade taxes and exchange controls.

For those involved, the attractions were inviting. They got to hold their money offshore with no record of the deposits in Ireland and still received an interest rate which was only one-eighth of 1 per cent less than they would get in an Irish bank. Mr Justice Brian McCracken described it as "an ingenious system".

Information about the customers and their money has been known to only a handful of people, including the late Mr Des Traynor and his successor, Mr Padraig Collery. The deposits, which were initially held by Irish residents in a Cayman Islands bank, Ansbacher Cayman Ltd, were later amalgamated and transferred to the Guinness and Mahon Bank in Dame Street, Dublin.

The account-holders were not required to sign any documentation, nor did they receive regular statements on their accounts, which contained millions of pounds. In a 1987 review of these arrangements by Coopers and Lybrand, auditors to Guinness and Mahon, it was acknowledged that "there is a high risk of mismanagement or fraud and it is essential that strong controls are in place".

Despite the revelations about the Ansbacher money during the McCracken tribunal, the Government strongly resisted pressure on two separate occasions in the Dail to allow a widespread investigation into the source and beneficial ownership of the monies in the accounts.

Despite this pressure, the Moriarty tribunal, established to undertake further investigations into the finances of Mr Charles Haughey and Mr Michael Lowry, had its terms of reference drawn up explicitly to exclude any investigation of the legality and ownership of the Ansbacher accounts.

The tribunal was asked 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 and also to investigate whether any payment was made from the Ansbacher deposits to those who held public office.

Fine Gael was also against a general inquiry into the accounts and joined Government parties in opposing Labour and Green Party proposals to have the Moriarty tribunal undertake a widespread investigation of the Ansbacher accounts.

The Labour Party wanted the tribunal to inquire into "the source of any money held in the Ansbacher accounts". The Greens wanted the tribunal to establish "the reason the monies held in the Ansbacher accounts remained outside the supervision of the Revenue Commissioners and the bank's regulatory authorities".

It appeared as if the names of those with money in the Ansbacher accounts would not be made public. However, alongside the limited investigation by the Moriarty tribunal, the Tanaiste appointed Mr Gerry Ryan as authorised officer to examine Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd. Ironically, the powers used by the Tanaiste's officer came from legislation introduced by her predecessor as PD leader, Mr Des O'Malley.

The Tanaiste was aware of the progress Mr Ryan and his four civil servant colleagues had been making and was, according to her close advisers, "shocked and stunned by the scale of what had been going on".

The PD leader hinted at the revelations to come when, at the end of last year, she said that certain people "played by different rules to the rest of us. Some of them felt they could ignore the laws of corporate governance. Others felt they could treat the tax laws of this State with contempt".

Mr Ryan, described by colleagues as unassuming but steely, led a team of four civil servants in an 18-month investigation which met varying degrees of co-operation from those named in the report submitted to the Tanaiste last June.

It is understood that, at various stages of these investigations over the last 18 months, Mr Ryan and his team, as one source put it, "ran into brick walls". The source said "patience was the key" in getting the information uncovered in relation to the 120 individuals named in the final report.

The Tanaiste has good reason to feel a sense of vindication with the latest development in getting to the core of the Ansbacher accounts. It is her much criticised strategy that has got the investigation this far. Concerns over the ability of her authorised officer to get to the full truth of the Ansbacher accounts have been partly borne out. But, at a minimal cost, five civil servants have delivered the names of 120 individuals who may well yet end up facing criminal proceeding for their involvement with these accounts.

The High Court inspectors have no time limit on their investigations. However, with Mr Ryan's report much groundwork has already been undertaken. A Government source said last night he could see no reason why the High Court would not publish the final report from the inspectors. That report is likely to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.