A landmark challenge to powers which allow the Independent Commission Against Corruption to force suspects to reveal their overseas bank accounts was rejected by the Court of Appeal yesterday. The judges refused to grant a certificate stating the case was so important it should be considered by the Court of Final Appeal. But this will not stop the legal team representing two suspects in a corruption inquiry seeking special leave to be heard by the top court. Senior Counsel Gerard McCoy said his two clients were the first in 23 years to be convicted as a result of this particular anti-bribery law. He had argued they had a right to withhold information which might incriminate them. But Mr Justice Michael Wong Kin-chow said the lawmakers had intended to remove this right when it came to such investigations. The court dismissed appeals by Lee Chin-ming, 39, and Chan Sze-ting, 43, against convictions for failing to provide details of bank accounts in Switzerland. They were each fined $15,000 and ordered to pay $2,500 costs by magistrate Paul Kelly in January. Their challenge to the convictions went straight to the Court of Appeal because it was considered a major issue. However, the appeal judges yesterday refused to declare the case of such importance that it was suitable to be considered by the Court of Final Appeal. Mr McCoy said that if the appeal went to the top court he would be able to introduce a challenge based on the Bill of Rights. He said: 'The issue in this case involves the tension between the powers of investigation of the ICAC which have prevailed over the rights of the individual in the criminal justice system.' The two men were convicted under section 13 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Mr McCoy said the law states that 'any person' who refuses to provide information without a good reason is guilty of a crime. But he argued this should not include suspects and that the law is aimed at getting information from third parties, not alleged criminals. Government counsel Kevin Zervos successfully applied for the costs of the appeal to be awarded in favour of the prosecution.