'MAY 14 '92 19:59 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708
25
P.8
95.
96.
97.
98.
As regards escroquerie Chauvy said we should identify precisely the fraudulent manoeuvre complained of and the identity of the victim. In relation to abus de confiance he said we should again identify the victim and emphasise that the funds were remitted for a specific use i.e. advances in compliance with established banking practices. He said that the request should explain the applicable Hong Kong and annex texts of the Hong Kong
law.
M. Chauvy then discussed the summary of facts and in particular Article 9 of the Treaty. He confirmed that normally a full file is not required and witness statements are not essential. He said however that all documents should be accompanied by certified translations.
M. Chauvy suggested that having regard to Article 9 and 10 of the Treaty that an urgent request for arrest was unsafe because the Treaty specifles that the requesting state had 14 days thereafter to make a proper request through diplomatic channels. He said if there was any hold up they would discharge Saniman and given the result in relation to the first request there would be difficulty proceeding against him again. He said we should send a request through diplomatic channels and the arrest would be governed by the 1927
law.
Chauvy suggested, in the new request, the title should be changed. The Governor's request should be entitled a new request on new elements. He also said that prior to the transmission of the fresh request the Ministry of Justice should be put on notice that there would be a new request notwithstanding the refusal of the first request. He went on to say that under the European Convention there could be no new request after a refusal to extradite on an earlier request. He said that instruction was wrong and that if there was new material facts there could be a new request. This had been confirmed by the Conseil D'etat.