TNAG-2653-FCO40-3846-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 67

'MAY 14 '92 19:56 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708

20

P.3

77.

78.

M. Chauvy explained that the French Courts do not normally look at evidence in the form of witness statements but having regard to the history and circumstances of this case he thought that they should be annexed to the request. In particular such witnesses as the Immigration Officer were very important for the Court to consider. He said that it was a good summary and he felt that the summary would be very helpful and of great assistance

to the Court.

Insofar as the corruptions were concerned, although that private sector corruption was not an extraditable offence, the conduct could be relied upon in support of the offence of abus de confiance and escroquerie. He thought

that the new facts were:-

(1)

the offences of abus de confiance;

(11)

the offence of escroquerie;

(iii)

the false documentation.

79.

He said in the first request mainly internal reports were relied upon. Now there were false loan files attached to the request and that there were new facts of evidence in the statements. He said the new qualification of offences, the witness statements and false documents would constitute "nouvelle factuelements". He also thought that the fresh charges would underline the fact that this was a fresh/new request. Chauvy thought we should include in the request the latest developments in relation to Mr. Osman. He also said that the fact that BBMB was a victim as well as BMFL was a new fact.

Chauvy advised that the US$138 million transaction and US$100 million transaction should be qualified as escroquerie and that the US$292 million, US$97 million and US$30 million transactions be qualified as abus de confiance. He said we should plead that at the time Saniman was party to the inaccurate loan documentation he was receiving corrupt payments from