TV ́E ESENON
Under these conditions, it can be conceived that the Public Prosecutor should have precisely developed such an analysis in his pleadings at the hearing of 26th June 1990 before the "Chambre d'Accusation" of the Court of Appeal of Versailles. The only difference which can be noted resides in the fact that the Public Prosecutor's pleadings concluded in the case of Mr Saniman in favour of complicity to fraud and not co-action, on the grounds that "it is George Tan who received the funds" (Pleadings, page 5), in such a way that the said George Tan alone would be the principal author of the offence. Mr Saniman being his accomplice.
Even if this difference is without consequence as regards the principles, because our criminal law treats the accomplice (in the same manner as the author), it remains that a constant trend in case law today makes it clear that the mere fact that the misappropriated funds were paid to a third party does not enable the accused to escape the qualification of author or co-author of the offence (see in particular Case. Crim. 4th May 1987, Bul. N° 175). It is by applying these principles that the "Chambre d'Accusation" of the Court of Versailles was entitied to decide that there was a case for qualifying the facts attributed to Mr Raïs Sandman as fraud and not a complicity to fraud.
Moreover, it was argued in the proceedings that the elements of the inquiry showed clearly that part of the misappropriated funds were paid back to Mr Sandman, which makes him the indirect recipient of such funds and which adds to the preceding considerations in order to justify the use by the "Chambre d'Accusation" of the term "co-author" in the carrying out of the fraud, in accordance with case law resulting from a decision of the "Chambre Criminelle" of the "Cour de Cassation" dated 26th July 1971 (Bul. No 242) (Decision of 30th October 1990, page 15).
Thus, it is difficult to see how these facts could be anything but criminal offences in French (nternal lew.
Mr Saniman himself did not contest this before the courts which had jurisdiction to hear him.
The extent of the criticism put forward by his before the "Cour de Cassation" against the opinion rendered by the "Chambre d'Accusation" of the Court of Appeal of Versailles makes this fact particularly significant whilst he had, needless to say, a perfect knowledge of the analysis which has just been recalled.
In such way that, in any event, the extradition could be no means be refused in respect of these two counts of indictment at least.
Yours sincerely,
ES ZS SØ FP TEC
BONGKO GUO13{TO
23:01
71'2 ZLTEN
BOLD 018 298 MH BONEHO SEGAMI
2661-80-00
28 MON 61