The Chambre d'Accusation of the Court of Appeal of Versailles issued on 30th October 1990 an advice partly in favour of the extradition, upholding five out of thirty-three counts of indictment (nos. 5, 9, 21, 22, 23).
The Chambre d'Accusation of the Court of Appeal of Versailles analysed the offenses submitted to it as constituting escroqueries under French law.
On 12th March 1991, the Criminal Chamber of the Cour de Cassation rejected the appeal made by Mr Saniman.
1. Counts of Indictment nos. 21, 22, 23: Obtaining property by deception
The accused is reproached to have, in July and October 1981, by means of fraudulent manoeuvres, obtained from Bimutra Malaysia Finance Limited (BMFL) assets in an amount of Pounds Sterling 500,000, HK$ 5,400,000 and HK$ 2,200,000 with a view to permanently depriving BMFL thereof. In reality, Mr Saniman had BMFL guarantee loans which had been granted to him by other financial
institutions.
Such loans were repaid and the funds deposited as security were returned with interest to BMFL.
If the Government deemed it necessary to submit the matter again to the Chambre d'Accusation of the Court of Appeal of Versailles, it is only that the new request made by the British Government, on behalf of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, was made under a unique warrant for arrest which included, besides facts in respect of which the Chambre d'Accusation of the Court of Appeal of Paris had issued a negative advice, new facts which justified this new referral.
A new referral to the Chambre d'Accusation for the same facts, for the same individual, after a negative advice is only possible when the Government is itself notified of a new request made on the basis of elements which, having taken place or being disclosed since the preceding request, allow for a different appraisal of the legal conditions for extradition.
The facts had been the subject of the above-mentioned negative advice, and had been characterised as theft of rights of claim.
The Chambre d'Accusation of the Court of Appeal of Versailles, on the contrary, upheld them, considering, contrary to the Chambre d'Accusation of the Court of Appeal of Paris, that they constituted abus de confiance (misuse of trust) punishable in French law.
Now the Government considered, contrary to the Court of Appeal of Versailles, and his assessment is discretionary on this issue, that it was not satisfied with the required conditions in respect of the counts of indictment 21,22 and 23. Indeed, a detailed presentation of the facts and a different legal characterisation of the offences do not constitute a modification of the initial legal conditions.
The Cour de Cassation, in its MANIGLIA decision of 20th December 1988, stated that this provision (sic) did not prevent a new referral to the Chambre d'Accusation in respect of the same facts against the same person when it was based on new elements modifying the initial legal conditions.
- 6 -