TNAG-2387-FCO40-3469-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 138

:

-2-

inspection by my legal advisers of

was

documents

in

the possession of Bank

Bumiputra Malaysia Berhad ("BBMB"). It will be recalled that the charges which I am facing arise as a result of my position as non-executive Director

of BBMB and its subsidiary, BMFL. In the context of the particular issue which I raise below, it is appropriate for me to state at the outset that it

BBMB/BMFL which filed the initial

me complaints against

with the

Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") in Hong Kong leading to my prosecution by the HK Government and my extradition from the UK. As a result of those complaints, and the documents which BBMB initially made available to the ICAC, the case alleged against me is that the acts complained

acts complained of were

carried out unilaterally by the Board of Directors of BMFL, and significantly for the purposes of the matters which I set out below, without the authority or knowledge of the Board or shareholders of BBMB. As I stated in paragraph 18

of my First Affirmation, it is my belief and my answer to this allegation that

various matters of which complaint was made by BBMB against me were authorised at the highest level and approved by the Executive Chairman and Directors of

BBMB. The various positions taken by BBMB in relation to the matters I set out

below, must therefore be considered in that context, i.e. BBMB is my accuser in circumstances where the question of its own knowledge and approval of the

acts complained of is at issue.

;

3.

I crave leave to refer to the Affidavit of Anad Krishnan dated 24th

October 1990 together with exhibits "AK 1" and "AK 2" which have been filed in

the proceedings ("the Krishnan Affidavit"). In paragraph 9 of his Affidavit,

Mr Krishnan explains that approximately 64% (or 3,480) of documents which BBMB

was required by a Court Order of 9th October 1990 to make available for my

inspection (and which documents they made available to the RK Government for

its inspection in 1986) are no longer available for my inspection. Mr Krishnan was advised by an Officer of BBMB that the relevant departments at

BBMB had been requested to search for documents but, given the years since the

HK inspection in 1986 only the remaining 36% could be found. It was explained that during the intervening 4 years, some of the documents had been taken by various departments and were missing (paragraph 6, Krishnan Affidavit). The unavailability of these documents was confirmed by BBMB in its letter dated

19th October 1990 (pages 23-24, "AK 2").

2