- 141 -
limited to pledging their respective cash deposits as security,
it would seem to us, absent any explanation by petitioner, that
Radcliffe or BOT itself, as the case may be, would have repaid
each of the Bank loans, as petitioner alleges each could have
done, rather than having had the foreign corporations pledging
collateral repay those loans.
Bearing in mind the findings we have already made, we turn
to each of the transactions at issue.
A. Bank Transactions
1. BB Loan No. 1 Transaction
While conceding that a loan, in fact, was made to Radcliffe
in the BB Loan No. 1 transaction, respondent contends that one or
more foreign corporations pledging collateral including Inter-
continental, and not Bangkok Bank LA branch, was "the ultimate
source" of that loan. She asserts that "at least" the Intercon-
tinental $450,000 deposit was pledged as security in connection
with the BB Loan No. 1 transaction and that she was unable to
obtain information concerning any other deposits pledged with
respect to that transaction.
With respect to respondent's suggestion that there were
other deposits besides the Intercontinental $450,000 deposit that
were pledged as security in connection with the BB Loan No. 1
transaction, we are unable to conclude from the record before us
that there were any such additional deposits. With respect to
respondent's alleged inability to obtain information relating to
Page: Previous 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011