19-10-1993
12:22
BRITISH EMBASSY PARIIS
On the legality
42 66 91 42
P.08
Considering that in compliance with its articles 27 and 28, the European Convention of extradition of 13 December 1957 does not apply to the territory of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong where the Franco-British Extradition Treaty of 14 August 1876, as amended, remains applicable, in compliance with its article 16 "in the colonies and other foreign possessions of the two high contracting parties" amongst which is the Crown colony of Hong-Kong possessed by Great-Britain by virtue of the Treaty of 29 August 1842 as amended, with China.
Considering that the request for extradition was addressed, as required by the Treaty of 14 August 1876, by the British government; that it is evident from the file that, in compliance with Article 6 of such treaty, it was presented by a diplomatic agent;
Considering that, by a decision of 30 October 1990, the chambre d'accusation of the court of appeal of Versailles deciding on the request for the extradition of Mr Saniman, issued a negative advice in respect of twenty-eight of the thirty-three counts of indictment concerning him and a positive advice in respect of the five other counts of indictment;
As regard the counts of indictment 5 and 9
Considering that under these counts of indictment one reproaches to Mr Saniman to have played a key role in the creation of fictitious companies to which loans would have been granted by concealing the identity of the actual beneficiaries thereof, and in the extension of such sums to such companies; considering that the fact, supposing it evidenced, that some of the fraudulent manoeuvres attributed to Mr Saniman would have taken place after the above-mentioned payments is irrelevant for the legal characterisation of the facts, which would constitute a conspiracy to defraud ("entente en vue de commettre une escroquerie") which is punishable in French law as well as in English law and is referred to at Article 3 of the Franco-British Extradition Treaty of 14 August 1876; considering that, by refusing, in respect of such counts of indictment, the extradition of Mr Saniman, the Minister of Justice made a decision on the basis of an error of law;
As regards the counts of indictment 21. 22 and 23
Considering that if the facts reproached to Mr Saniman were characterised, in the first request for extradition, as theft of an intangible claim, and gave rise to a negative advice of the chambre d'accusation of the court of appeal of Paris dated 4 November 1987, the new request for extradition based on the accusation of obtaining property by deception contained new facts concerning, in particular, the capacity of Mr Bin Saniman as agent and his capacity as hierarchical superior of the individual who participated in the reproached action; that given the importance of these new facts,
- 3 -
80'd
00 ZS SØ
Τ ΣΕ
BONCHO AUDITO
25:¿T COGI ĐI SI