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.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article