'MAY 14 '92 19:52 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708
P.17
62.
63.
64.
65.
16
Essentially, M. Chauvy thought that the first allegations relating to the release of the US$292 million constituted and should be qualified as a breach of trust (abus de confiance) and that we should qualify the other offences as escroquerie because the first false documentation was created only in June 1980 after the US$292 million had already been drawn down.
M. Chauvy then wished to discuss the procedural aspects of the case. M. Chauvy said that although the first request was still with the Ministry of Justice and that the warrant annexed thereto was valid as far as the French were concerned there should be a new request and new warrant. He said in the new request we should refer to the old request and the warrant.
Chauvy advised that we should issue the new request and transmit it through diplomatic channels. He said the new request could invoke new facts consisting of the documents that we had sent to M. Monnet which should be annexed to the new request. He emphasised that the request should contain a very clear and detailed summary of the facts and the offences alleged against Saniman. M. Chauvy noted for example that the witness statement of Au Fan Mel Lin showing the exact dates of arrival and departure in Hong Kong by Saniman should definitely be in the request as it was a very useful new fact.
M. Chauvy explained that in France the time limitation for this kind of offence is three years. Therefore he said we should state in the request that the investigations had already started in April 1985. I asked M. Chauvy whether Article 17 of the French statute of the 10th of March 1927 relating to the extradition of foreigners could be an obstacle to fresh proceedings in France. He said indeed Article 17 provides, when the opinion of the Chambre rejects the request for extradition, such opinion is definitive and the extradition cannot be granted.
}
FAGanGIFTNI.00
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.