TNAG-2653-FCO40-3846-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 76

4

MAY 14 '92 20:01 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8184708

P.12

29

(xiii) master loan agreement and schedule re US$292 million;

(xv) introductory paragraphs to Affidavit by DPP setting out case

statements.

108. On the 4th of December 1989 and furnished me with Articles 188 and 189 of the Code de Procedure Penale concerning nouvelle charges. And Article 405 and 408 of the Code Penale relating to escroquerie (Annexure "G"). He confirmed that they would be meeting with M. Chauvy to discuss the case

that week.

(Again I was required to be involved in Osman litigation in Malaysia and Hong Kong),

109. On the 29th of March 1990 I spoke with Gonzales regarding the period of limitation. Chauvy had advised that as far as he was concerned there was no problem in this regard as there had been any number of intervening acts that would suspend the operation of any limitation period. M. Chauvy advised that the history of the Osman proceedings and all other related extradition proceedings were material in this regard.

110. On the 7th of May 1990 M. Gonzales advised me that all statements and

111.

domimenta shmild he certified by Official French translators as then they could not be attacked. He also felt that we should annex and translate portions of the judgments in the Osman and Shamsudin proceedings in UK and Hong Kong.

We discussed the jurisprudence relating to a fresh request on new facts. Gonzales said this was a vague area and there was no real settled law on nouvelle factuelement. He advised that he had discussed with Chauvy and Chauvy was positive that there was a sufficient basis to justify a fresh request.