MAY 14 '92 19:50 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708
ز
14
P.15
54.
goods. He said that the problem here was that in the restricted list that appeared under Article 408 of the Code Penale a money loan was not listed. Chauvy stated that it appeared from the facts described in the request that there was lending of money from BBMB to BMFL followed by on-lending from BMFL to the GT/Carrian group. For example, M. Chauvy referred to the statement of Asam Bin Dimas at paragraphs 8 and 9 and at Jafaar's statement at paragraph 278.
M. Chauvy suggested that in a new request we should qualify the facts as offences of breach of trust not under a contract of lending or on-lending of
money
but rather under a contract of mandate or power of attorney from BBMB. He suggested that we emphasise that BMFL was authorised by BBMB to deal with money raised on the inter-bank market in a certain way and that they acted in breach of that authority.
55. Chauvy said we should show that BMFL received the money from BBMB with a "mandate" or power of attorney to lend the money to certain persons/customers under certain conditions. He felt that the operating manual of BBMB that was referred to in the statement of George Cathles, contained instructions and rules governing the conduct of BMFL's business and could certainly be used as evidence of the existence of that "mandate". He said the manual clearly gives instructions on how to make loans and under what conditions they were to be advanced. Chauvy observed that one of the rules provided that a customer loan must be made for a specified period against securities, another that money market loans were only made between banks and financial institutions. Chauvy said that this was contained in the statement of George Cathles. He said that by lending money to a non-financial institution without security we could say that the directors of BMFL committed a breach of trust.
56.
I then asked M. Chauvy if it would be possible to rely on the offence of