Article

Note:Am-Asian Resources International Inc., of which one defendant was majority owner, successfully applied to at least eight different banks for LCs. Although no goods were ever produced by any company, the defendants provided bogus documents to the banks declaring their receipt. The sellers, who channeled the funds back to Am-Asian, were either false companies created by the majority owner of Am-Asian, defendant Kwan, or companies with which he conspired to obtain letters of credit. The seven defendants were charged with eight counts (one each per bank) upon an indictment, each of which was charged with conspiracy to defraud. Kwan was convicted of seven counts while the others were convicted of a variety of all counts based on their involvement or lack of involvement with each bank transaction.

Four of the defendants applied for leave of appeal against conviction and sentence of four years imprisonment with the owner of Am-Asian appealing his conviction and sentence of six years. The defendants claimed sentencing should be based on some lowest common denominator in view of the judge's direction to the jury that conviction need only require proof of agreement to conspire rather than proof of agreement as well as proof of a non-supply of goods. The appellate court rejected this argument stating "This was a case at the root of which was evidence that bogus transactions and bogus documents were put forward. There was much from which the bogus nature of the underlying transactions was to be drawn, and it was, indeed, unnecessary for the prosecution to prove by direct evidence in each instance that there were no goods."

Two of the other defendants claimed the indictment "failed to set out the particulars necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the charge" as the law requires. The counts specified what constituted the false representations in each instance, the method of false representation, the acts applying for letters of credit, and the intended effect of the conspiracy. Charts were shown to the defense which particularized the transactions at the onset of trial. The appellate court stated that "no one was under the illusion but that this was an allegation of a straightforward letter of credit fraud."

The defendants claimed that they were each individually involved in mini-conspiracies which when taken together formed the "ultimate conspiracy" to defraud the bank. They claimed the indictment incorrectly charged and convicted the person named with the "ultimate conspiracy" where no direct evidence was given to state what the individual did or did not know about other members of the conspiracy. The court concluded that "there was ample evidence from which this jury could infer that each defendant must have known that he was party to a conspiracy which had to involve others." Sentences of the trial court were affirmed.

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.