Co-cr-1001 LOAD
cro 4400
BACKGROUND_NOTE
HOME OFFICE
P/W
FAF 341/2
RECEN
C7 DIVISION
ра
Ms/vis
Mr Osman has been remanded in custędy awaiting extradition since 7 December 1985. In support of their application the Hong Kong authorities submitted evidence consisting 90 volumes and 40,000 pages of statements and exhibits. The case
P.02
concerns a series of loans made by a deposit taking company in Hong Kong, Bumiputra Malaysia Finance Limited (BMFL), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a major bank if Malaysia, Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Berhad (BBMB). The loans were made to companies controlled by George Tan, the head of a group of companies in Hong Kong loosely described as "The Carrion Group", and amounted to the equivalent of some 800 million US dollars. The BMMB was established in Malaysia for the benefit of the indigenous Malays (known as the Bumiputras).
It was
owned by a trust set up for that purpose and by the Government
of Malaysia. Mr Osman was a founder director of BMMB and
Chairman of the Board of BMFL. It is alleged that between 1979 and 1983 he and others conspired to defraud the BMFL.
2. The Committal hearings before the Chief Metropolitan
Stipendiary Magistrate lasted 66 working days and on 1 June 1986 Mr Osman was committed to custody to await the Home
Secretary's order for his surrender to Hong Kong to stand trial on charges involving conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy
to steal, bribery, theft and fraudulent false accounting. A
fugitive cannot be returned while proceedings on an appeal are
pending.
3. Mr Osman has now made 5 applications for a writ of habeas corpus. In the first one he challenged the order of the Chief
Magistrate on a variety of grounds including the sufficiency of the evidence, inadmissibility of the evidence, and the lack of jurisdiction in the Hong Kong Courts to try many of the alleged offences. He further claimed that the speciality provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 had not been complied with. In March 1988 after a 4 week hearing in the Divisional Court, the application was dismissed. In his judgement, Lord Justice Lloyd decided that with one or two