23-APR-1993
16:36
BRITISH EMBASSY PARIS
16 1 42 bb 91 42
P.28
25
Indeed, it all purports to hold that M: Saniman would have had powers which he never had and which would have allowed to him to grant the loans.
But, if Mr Saniman had had these powers, there cannot be any offense of escroquerie as the offense of escroquerie implies that the intent of the victim should have been vitiated by the fraudulent manoeuvres (see Merle et Vitu, Treaty of Criminal Law, Volume II no. 2335). Insofar as Mr Saniman would have had the necessary authority to grant 'he loans, the intent of BMFL could not be vitiated; as to BMBB, it did not grant loans directly to companies in the Carrian Group and only supplied B.M.F.L, with the funds necessary for the financing of such loans; BBMB could not therefore be the victim of an
escroquerie.
If one sets aside this observation of good sense, one can only acknowledge that in paragraphs 113 to 133,
VHY
one finde no trace of a fraudulent manoeuvre which would have had as its result the remittance of the funds, as it is established that the loans were paid without establishing any banking document and the
T
banking documents destined to cover the ivans were only established a posterinel which axcludes, as is very rightly stated by the Minister of Justice in his comments, that the drafting of the documents could have been the cause of the remittance and could characterise the fraudulent manoeuvres necessary for the
offense of escroquerie.
As to the paragraphs 184 to 191. treated by the pleadings as new facts, they simply purport to establish that Mr Saniman would have had very large powers and would have taken, on account of BMFL, all the decisions necessary for granting and setting-up the loans.
One has seen above what one shoulc: think of this thesis and to what extent it is against the case which is pleaded, as it shows only that there could be no escroquerie.
Thus, the refusal to extradite appears to perfectly reasoned as regards the fifth count of indicument.