Problem communicating with remote server...
Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Seventh Report


Annex U

Letter to Mr Bernard O'Sullivan, Titmuss Sainer Dechert,

from Mr M A Fisher, Head of Business Operations, National Westminster Bank

AGB INTERNATIONAL (FORMERLY PERGAMON ABG PLC)

CHEQUE NO: 001751 FOR £200,000

I refer to your letter dated 25th August 1999 and the subsequent authority granted by the Company's Administrators to disclose the information sought in the aforementioned letter.

Taking your questions in turn:

1.  On what date was cheque no 1751 paid into the Tavistock Square Branch?

Reply: In the normal course of business, the cheque would have been processed by Tavistock Square Branch on Friday, 7th December 1990.

2.  On what date was the credit of £200,000 remitted to the Birmingham City Office from the Tavistock Square Branch?

Reply: We cannot unequivocally link cheque number 001751 and the credit of £200,000 remitted to Birmingham City Office. However, in the normal course of business the credit would have been processed by Tavistock Square Branch on Friday, 7th December 1990. We would stress that this credit and the cheque for £200,000 may be completely unrelated.

3.  On what date were funds debited from the account of AGB International plc? If this is not the date shown on the bank statement (11 December 1990), please explain the difference.

Reply: Cheque number 001751 for £200,000 was debited from the account of Pergamon AGB plc on Tuesday, 11 December 1990.

4.  It is possible that £200,000 was shown as a credit in the account at Birmingham City Office (and therefore on the statements of that account) on a date before the money was debited from the AGB International account.

In other words, assuming the answer to question 3 to be 11 December 1990, is it possible that the £200,000 is shown as a credit on the receiving party's statements at 10 December 1990 or earlier?

Reply: In the normal course of business a credit paid at Tavistock Square Branch (as referred to in our reply under question 2) on 7th December 1990 for the credit of an account domiciled at Birmingham City Office would have been applied to the account on 11th December 1990 (i.e. the third working day). However it is possible that events outside of the normal course of business could result in the credit being applied to the account on a different date. We have insufficient records available to be able to identify whether such events applied in this case.

5.  Applying general principles, if this particular cheque was not specially cleared, what date would you expect it to show up on the receiving party's bank statement?

Reply: Applying general principles and in the normal course of business we would expect that it the cheque was paid in at Tavistock Square Branch on 7 December 1990 with a credit for an account domiciled at Birmingham City Office, then the funds would appear on the beneficiary's bank statement on 11th December 1990 (i.e. the third working day).

You will see that in a number of areas we have referred to "the normal course of business" being the 3 day clearing cycle for both debits and credits (i.e. received working day 1, passed to account working day 3).

There are possibilities, outside of the normal course of business, which if applied to the questions you have raised may have resulted in different responses. However, the very limited records which we still possess for the period in question prevents the reconstruction or identification of any events which in this instance can be considered outside the normal course of business.

I hope the above is sufficient for your needs.

6 October 1999





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 4 May 2001