14-MAY-1992 10:34
BRITISH EMBASSY PARIS
16 1 42 66 91 42 P.09
This implies that one should question the accuracy of the two reasons put forward in the above mentioned note of 20th March 1992. Referring exclusively to the judicial phase of the procedure of extradition, such reasons lead naturally to assess the decision of the government in respect of those made by the courts which decided upon the matter before the government.
B The character of the judicial assessment relating to a request for
ertradition
After the rejection by the "Chambre d'accusation" of the Court of Appeal of Paris of first request for extradition on 4th November 1987. the "Chambre d'accusation" of the Court of Appeal of Versailles accepted in part a second request, on 30th October 1990, in view of the new elements brought forward by the requesting State.
This judicial decision occupies a central place in the procedure of
extradition defined in the statute of 10th March 1927. It states, in
particular:
9
"ON THE FACTS CALLED CONSPIRACY WITH A VIEW TO COMMITTING FRAUD N° 5 and
Considering that the role reproached to Saniman, i.e. prompting GT to create fictitious companies and having funds paid into the accounts of such companies, in order for GT/CARRIAN to misappropriate such funds, can be analysed as fraud ("escroqueries"); considering that such facts are referred to and punished by article 405 of the Criminal Code, referred to and punished by British legislation, and ultimately that the offence of fraud is provided for
in article 3 of the Extradition Treaty.
Considering consequently that such facts (5 and 9), taking into account
in particular the new elements that modify the initial conditions of low as regards the actual authority of Saniman within B.M.F.L. and his hierarchical
authority over Jaaafar correspond, with respect to the principle of double punishment, to the conditions of the Treaty and that it is appropriate to issue an advice in favour of extradition;
- 5 -