TNAG-2387-FCO40-3469-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 55

- 3

15933/89

The numerous allegations against the applicant derive from the operations of a deposit-taking company, known as "BUMIPUTRA MALAYSIA FINANCE LIMITED" (BMFL) which was a wholly owned subsidiary of "BANK BUMIPUTRA MALAYSIA BEHRAD" (BBMB), a Government owned bank in Malaysia. It is claimed that over a period of four years, between 1979 and 1983, while the applicant was a non-executive director of both companies, he and others fraudulently authorised advances of sums to a group of companies known as "THE CARRIAN GROUP" without obtaining sufficient security and contrary to accepted banking rules and practice, and also contrary to the established rules within BMFL and BBMB. The amount of money involved in the loans, in three different currencies, was in excess of US$800,000,000. The advances allegedly amounted to offences of conspiracy to defraud and to steal, theft and false accounting. They were accompanied by allegedly corrupt payments to the applicant totalling about £12,000,000.

The applicant's defences to these charges are that authority and approval were forthcoming from BBMB, the parent bank, for all activities of BMFL and that full reporting ensured that the Board of BBMB and shareholders were aware of the activities of BMFL and not only raised no objection but instigated a number of the transactions which are the subject-matter of the charges brought against the applicant in respect of 42 of the alleged offences. The applicant claims that the original warrant issued against him on 30 November 1985 was invalid but he only became aware of this from 13 October 1988 onwards. Other information relevant to the lawfulness of his arrest and detention was allegedly denied him for over three years in lengthy proceedings, including proceedings in Hong Kong, which have been resisted at every stage. The length of proceedings was also increased by the large number of charges involved even though only specimen charges will probably be pursued if he is in fact extradited.

The extradition proceedings against the applicant were heard at Bow Street Magistrates' Court in London over a period between 27 May 1986 and 1 June 1987 (on 27 May to 22 June 1986, 28 October to 5 December 1986, 26 January to 2 February 1987, 27 April to 22 May 1987 and 1 June 1987). The hearing dates were fixed from time to time taking account of the convenience of counsel. The hearing lasted 66 days and involved evidence being taken over 42 days and 24 days of legal submissions. Exhibits in the case numbered approximately 5,000 and ran into some 30,000 pages (150 volumes). There were 29 Malaysian, 58 Hong Kong and 12 United Kingdom witnesses, who provided over 2,800 exhibits. The applicant and his advisers received copies of most of the evidence two months before the hearing commenced. However, other evidence, amounting to 26 volumes, was served on the applicant on 16 December 1986, over six months after the proceedings had commenced. Part of the hearings (16 days) were taken up with the applicant's challenges to the admissibility of certain evidence. The applicant's counsel sought lengthy adjournments, in view of the volume of evidence and the complexity of legal argument, which adjournments were only granted by the Chief Magistrate when satisfied that the applicant had no objection to remaining in custody. For example, delay occurred between 22 June 1986 and 28 October 1986 because of the unavailability of the applicant's counsel, and on two occasions between 5 December 1986 and early March 1987 because the applicant's counsel had underestimated the length of his submissions.