}
MAY 14 '92 19:43 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708
7
P.8
28.
29.
On the 12th of February 1988, with Ms. De Bandt I met M. Monnet at the Palais de Justisice. He advised us that we should commence fresh proceedings based on new facts. M. Monnet advised us that abus de confiance (breach of trust) was an extraditable offence in French law. He went on to say that, based on what we had told him, he doubted that such conduct would constitute a theft within the terms of the French Code. But he did feel that this conduct constituted an abus de conflance.
Monnet also told us that, as far as the false or misleading documentation was concerned, it was sufficient they were created under Saniman's instruction. He said the French law did not require the documents to be actually created by Saniman. He said that we should annex those documents to the request whether or not Saniman was the author. Monnet told us that it was important to specify and particularise Saniman's role and participation in the whole affair. Because this had not been done in the first request he said Saniman was able to plead to the Court (a) that he was not in Hong Kong at the time of the offences; (b) that Jafaar was his superior; (c) that he was not a director of BMFL and played no part in the granting of loans or the affairs of BMFL at all.
30.
31.
M. Monnet stated that the conduct of George Tan would under the French Code constitute an offence of embezzlement of the funds of BMFL. He suggested that Saniman might have aided and abetted Tan in that offence. He suggested we look at the section of the Code dealing with aiding and abetting (1.e. complicité). I again emphasised to M. Monnet the enormity of the fraud and the fact that it was a very high profile matter in Hong Kong and of considerable importance to the Hong Kong Government.
I explained to M. Monnet that in relation to the co-conspirators:-
(1)
George Tan had been arrested in Hong Kong and was awaiting trial;
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.