'MAY 14 '92 19:51 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708
P.16
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
15
complicité d'escroquerie (1.e. aiding and abetting the obtaining money or goods by deception) against Saniman regarding George Tan is the author of the "escroquerie".
M. Chauvy considered the matter for a short time and then advised me he thought it was an excellent idea. He thought it was even better breach of trust because that offence had been referred to in the first proceedings and rejected by the French Court in their judgment albeit on dubious grounds. He said by so pleading the case and qualifying it in French law in such terms, we could avoid the argument that we are invoking the same facts against the same person and thus violating the rule "non bis in idem".
M. Chauvy advised that we should explain in our request the nature of the charges alleged against George Tan and that we qualify them as offences of escroquerie or detournement frauduleuse under French law.
I explained to M. Chauvy the English offences of obtaining by deception and conspiracy to defraud. He said they corresponded to abuse de confiance, escroquerie and and detournement frauduleuse.
He explained that Article 405 of the Code Penale defined the escroquerie as a theft with the help of tricks or fraudulent machinations. He said that we should show in the request that Tan could not do this without the help of Saniman, a director of BBMB and BMFL, so as to underline Saniman's
complicity.
Chauvy went on to say that the falsification of documents could be regarded by the French as the use of tricks to deceive the directors and executives of BBMB to permit further loans. Thus the directors were in this deceived
way
into believing that the borrowers were a number of separate corporate entities, totally unrelated to one another.