TNAG-2653-FCO40-3846-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 83

'MAY 14 '92 20:05 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708

36

P.19

million. He also did a note in relation to the false accounting. It seemed clear even on his reasoning that De Touzalin had fallen into error. I inquired of Siméons possibility of addressing further submissions to the Chambre de Accusation having regard to De Touzalin's erroneous way of dealing with:-

(i) the role of the requested state caught in extradition;

(1)

གྱི

reasons in the requisition for returning Saniman on the US$138 and US$100 million and the back to back loans but not the US$292, US$97

and the US$30 million.

I was very concerned that the Court was being led into error and that surely there must be something we could do to remedy the situation. I was told again that we had no locus, we could not intervene and there was nothing further that we could do.

Supplemental Request For Extradition

135. In mid-August I spoke to Danny Cohen Professor of law and Advocat a la Cour in France in relation to the Saniman extradition. I briefly outlined the position to him. He advised me that, although he was not familiar with the papers, he thought that there could be a supplemental diplomatic note submitted to the French authorities before the hearing in September. He told me that he would not be in Paris until mid-September but would be more than happy to review the documentation during that period. I told him that I would arrange for documentation to be sent to him from MacFarlanes, solicitors in UK.

136. On the 29th of August 1990 I spoke again with Mr. Cohen. He advised me:-

(1)

the requisitions were too light and too short;

(ii)

he said he would review the request for extradition and warrant, charges, information, statement of the DPP and statement of facts. I