MAY 14 '92 19:42 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708
6
P.7
25.
The D.P.P. subsequently instructed me to take over the Saniman extradition and commence negotiations with the French authorities with a view to Instituting a fresh request.
Decision of the Chambre D'Accussation
26.
It was abundantly clear from the Judgment of the Cour d'Accussation that Saniman had mislead the Court by stating:-
(1)
he had not been in Hong Kong at any material time;
(ii) Jafaar was his superior;
(ii)
he was not a director in BMFL and took no part in granting loans or for that matter the affairs of BMFL at all.
27.
Furthermore, the Court found therefore that the failure to show disapproval of his superior's instructions (i.e. Jafaar) did not amount to aiding and abetting. The Court fell into error when considering abus de confiance (breach of trust). Nevertheless the qualification of Saniman's offence as theft created problems, as the Court wrongly thought the subject of the theft was in fact a chose in action. This did not come within Article 408 of the Criminal
Code.
On the 11th of February 1988 Ms. Christine De Bandt and I met with Maitre Beatrice Weiss Gout, a partner in Siméon, Moquet, Borde & Associes in Paris. She read the judgment and told us that he thought the Court had fallen into error. She felt that the offences committed by Saniman constituted abus de confiance which was an extraditable crime. She also told us that M. Monnet was an extremely influential man and if we had his co- operation it would be very beneficial in formulating a second request. Her preliminary view was that we should commence a fresh request.
Second Meeting with Procurer Général 12.02.88
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.