'MAY 14 '92 19:59 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708
j
26
P.9
99.
In the afternoon of the 2nd of August 1989 M. Siméon and Ms. Hayderi and I discussed the meeting. In particular given M. Chauvy's advice we discussed the nature and content of the formal request. We also considered Article 147 of the Code Penale in relation to forgery. We reviewed Article 59 in relation to complicity and Article 60 dealing with conspiracy. They felt that the significant evidence of corruption was material to the abus de confiance and said it was analogous to a breach of duty by a bailee.
The Forn and Contents of the Fresh Request
100. On the 12th of October 1989 concurrent with further proceedings by Osman in the Divisional Court (UK3), I met M. Robert and M. Adrian Gonzales of Siméon & Associes in Paris. M. Gonzales was qualified both in the common law and Code and was very helpful. We discussed:-
(1)
Affidavit as to foreign law;
(11)
the nature of the offence, conspiracy to defraud;
(iii) status of an alternate director in Hong Kong law-M. Gonzales asked if he could have with copies of Board Minutes, Articles and Memorandum of Association of BMFL.
He said he wanted to
understand clearly the role of an alternate director.
101. Gonzales suggested that we include transcripts of relevant proceedings in other jurisdiction relating to the BMFL prosecution where they confirmed and substantiated the Saniman case.
102. Gonzales said in particular the Affidavit of Law should clearly define and explain the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. He said we should state that this behaviour or conduct was indictable in Hong Kong law and that the same facts were extraditable in France. He said we should clearly identify the conduct that qualified in French law as an extraditable offence. We all agreed that it did not matter how the offences were