TNAG-2653-FCO40-3846-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 74

'MAY 14 '92 20:00 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708

P.10

27

particularised in Hong Kong law, the role of the Court in the requested state was to transpose the conduct and facts so as to ascertain whether or not such conduct constituted French offences if it occurred in France.

103. There was further discussion concerning proscription (period of limitations). Gonzales said the date of discovery of the fraud was an important date. He said that this fact suspends the period of limitation. He felt it would be necessary for us to give some detail of the Police investigation and the date the investigation commenced. He said he would do a note to Chauvy in relation to the question of proscription.

At this stage I was required in Malaysia re Osman litigation.

104. On the 21st of November 1989 I met again with M. Robert and Gonzales in Paris. M. Gonzales had helpfully re-arranged the case statement so as to highlight:-

(1) the qualification of the conduct in terms of French law; and

(11)

€

the new facts that were relied upon in this request. We went carefully through the case statement and agreed that I would review it more fully and revert back to them with amendments.

We discussed the translation of the request and annexures and agreed they should be certified and authenticated locally by Court translators.

105. We agreed that there should be a new warrant annexing new charges and

they should be as follows:-

)

(i)

conspiracy to defraud;

(ii)

obtaining by deception;

(iii) aiding and abetting by deception;

€

х