A TURKISH Cypriot businessman ordered to forfeit #650,000 of a #1m

bail surety for fugitive tycoon Asil Nadir yesterday won a Court of

Appeal bid to have the order quashed.

The court ruled by a 2-1 majority that Ramadan Guney was not obliged

to pay because Mr Nadir had surrendered to custody in June 1992 and Mr

Guney's obligation as a surety had ended.

The ruling on a legal technicality was a blow to the Serious Fraud

Office which now faces a bill for legal costs unofficially estimated at

#60,000.

The SFO was given leave to challenge yesterday's split decision in the

House of Lords.

Mr Guney, 65, of Green Lanes, north London, said: ''I am pleased to

say justice has been done.''

His successful appeal was against a ruling in July 1993 -- upheld by

two High Court judges in January last year -- that he was liable to pay

the #650,000 after Mr Nadir absconded to Northern Cyprus, following a

preliminary court hearing, to avoid trial on charges of theft and false

accounting.

Old Bailey judge Mr Justice Tucker, who conducted the preliminary

hearing, did not regard the businessman as having surrendered to the

court and stated the bail conditions continued.

The SFO argued that Mr Nadir was not required to surrender that day

and had not done so, while Mr Guney's lawyers contended that Mr Nadir

had attended court because he was required to do so and therefore

surrendered.

In the appeal court, Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls,

concluded there had been no surrender, saying: ''Plainly the judge here

did not intend to require Mr Nadir to surrender to the custody of the

court or believe that he had done so.''

But Sir Michael Mann and Lord Justice Peter Gibson disagreed. Lord

Justice Gibson said: ''In my judgment a surrender to the custody of the

court occurs when a defendant on bail and under a duty so to surrender

is required to attend the court and responds by attending the court and

overtly subjecting himself to the directions of the court.''