TNAG-2653-FCO40-3846-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 38

· MAY 14 '92 19:28 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708

P.9

8

warranties, false loan agreements) and the substitution of seven other companies for the seven original borrowing companies, such security was unenforceable by BMFL as was the purported loan agreement. The only purported security was shares in the borrower George Tan which was illusory in the circumstances and received several months after the money was paid. The loans were false reported to the parent bank as syndicated

loans.

THE LOAN OF US$100 MILLION

33.

34.

35.

The advance was again paid to George Tan's company.

Here again the sparse documentation wrongly reflected that the borrowers were five separate companies totally unrelated to one another and to George Tan, thereby disguising the identity of the true recipient. This advance was made without any formal loan documentation and BMFL obtained no security for such loan. Furthermore, the advance was misreported to the parent bank as a money market placement with financial institutions.

It was Saniman alone who negotiated with George Tan the US$138 and US$100 million loans. It was also Saniman alone who devised the scheme to falsely reflect both the identify of the borrowers and the nature of the lending in both these transactions.

THE LOAN OF US$97 MILLION

36.

By this stage BMFL was massively exposed to one borrower George Tan. The advances were all falsely documented or inadequately documented and unsecured. Notwithstanding, a further advance of US$97 million was made. There was neither any loan agreement nor any security. The amounts were simply paid out by BMFL to the Carrian group. There were no written applications or approval for the advance and again it was misreported to the parent bank as a money market placement with a financial institution.