33-APP-1993 16:38
BRITISH EMBASSY FARIS
181 42 626 91 48
F.30
27
If one refers, in addition, to paragraphs 126 and 127 of the statement of facts raised by the recourse (pp. 31 et seq. of the French translation and in particular p. 33) one does not find any trace of a fraudulent manoeuvre having been the cause of the remittance.
One sees that, on the instructions of Saniman, which is expressly challenged by him, and with the consent of the "other directors" such loans would have been the subject of a forged report aiming at "making believe that the funds in question wou'd have been placed with approved banks and financial Institutions".
This report is obviously subsequent to the remittance to the funds and could not be the cause thereof.
Also from the statement of facts, one draws that no official loan document was established or signed, as this is necessary for term loans granted to private companies; this does not establish the existence of a
remittance caused by fraudulent manoeuvres.
The minutes of the meeting of the board authorising the transactions would have been drafted subsequently, six months after the final drawings; this has nothing to do with the fraudulent manoeuvres
having permitted the remittance of the funds.
Paragraphs 131 and 132 do not describe fraudulent manoeuvres but uses of funds.
One looks therefore in vain for any fraudulent manoeuvres.
As to the very peculiar argument used in the pleadings (see p. 20) according to which it is reproached to Mr Sanimɛn not to have even deemed it useful to submit to the Cour de Cassation the positive advice of the Chambre d'Accusation in respect of the characterisation of escroquerie hold in respect of the counts
of indictment numbers 5 and 9, it is totally irrelevant.
'It has been shown that Mr Sanima: was not a director.