MAY 14 '92 20:08 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708
40
P.23
147. M. Siméon advised me that at first he found the Procurer Général most difficult. He was aggressive and appeared to take the matter personally. M. Siméon then explained that there was some typographical errors in the charges and that it was clear that if one looked at the original statements it was not something new that was being proposed. M. Siméon suggested that a Note or Schedule might be helpful identifying the "typos" and showing where the correct figures could be found in the witness statements.
148.
De Touzalin emphasised to M. Siméon that he was not the Attorney General of the Queen of England. M. Siméon assured him of the importance of the case due to its magnitude. Progressively M. De Touzalin seemed to understand and adopt a different approach. M. Siméon then showed him the Supplemental Note and how useful it might be to him.
149. M. Siméon said immediately he jumped on the critical issue i.e. the methodology or the method of analysing the particulars of the offence. He told Siméon that he merely referred to the particulars in the charges. He regarded the matter as closed. M. Siméon pursued the matter and convinced him that the statement of facts or particular of charges in the foreign charges was a bad translation of the foreign charge. He explained the particulars were not descriptive of fact but a qualification of the facts as particularised in Hong Kong law.
150. M. Siméon said it was only then that De Touzalin became interested in the evidence. He then admitted that he should look at the evidence globally. He then conceded that it was only after ascertaining the facts from the case summary and witness statements that he was able to make the proper qualificational and characterisation in terms of French law. Suddenly M. De Touzalin seemed 100% in agreement with the method of analysation and M. Siméon felt he had managed to take him away from the charges. M. Siméon said suddenly the tone of the meeting changed. M. Siméon then took De
}