Named: Six firms linked to corrupt private detectives but public STILL refuse to release full list of 107 because data is 'confidential' SOCA handed secret list over to Home Affairs Select Committee last month Names of companies include Deloitte, Credit Suisse and Chase International Companies were identified when Met investigation led to jailing of four PIs Soca has provoked outrage by keeping the names secret for years and refusing to make them public despite pressure from MPs Police yesterday refused to identify the companies and celebrities linked to rogue private investigators, even as the names began to trickle out. The Serious Organised Crime Agency, or Soca, insisted its list of 102 firms and individuals would remain "confidential." The agency has provoked outrage by suppressing the names for years, on the grounds that releasing them would breach privacy laws, and damage commercial interests. There is no evidence that anyone who hired the private investigators - directly or indirectly - knew they were acting unlawfully. However, six firms that appear on a list belonging to a corrupt private detective were named yesterday. They were the leading accountants, Deloitte; powerful banks Credit Suisse and Chase International; and legal firms Richards Butler, Herbert Smith and Clyde & Co. Sources in Westminster said the six were among the 102 identified during a Metropolitan Police investigation that led to the jailing of four private detectives. Despite this, a Soca spokesman stressed: "The list is confidential and we are not commenting on it." Labour MP Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, insisted the list should be published, claiming it "would give the public the answers they deserve and begin the process of closure for the victims." Deloitte and Clyde & Co denied hiring private investigators who acted illegally. The other four named companies declined to comment. Home Affairs Committee Chairman Keith Vaz has called for the list to be published for the sake of the victims and because 'innuendo is always worse than full disclosure'