- 157 -
the Merit $570,000 deposit and (2) Standard Chartered Bank,
Singapore, through its affiliate Union Bank had an inflow of
funds (viz., the interest paid by BOT to Union Bank on the UB
$570,000 renewed loan) that was sufficient to cover its outflow
of funds for the interest presumably paid on the Forward $570,000
deposit.113
Except as noted below with respect to the first renewal of
the UB $570,000 renewed loan, we cannot determine the nature of
the relationships, if any, between (a) the respective rates of
interest on the UB $570,000 pre-March 1984 loan and the Merit
$570,000 deposit and on the UB $570,000 renewed loan and the
Forward $570,000 deposit and (b) the respective dates on which
interest was payable or paid on those respective loans and depos-
its. This is because the record is inadequate. In this regard,
while the record shows certain facts relating to that inquiry
with respect to the UB $570,000 pre-March 1984 and renewed loan
113 The record does not disclose the interest rates applicable
to or the amounts of interest payable or paid on certain of the
deposits (viz., the Merit $570,000 deposit, the Forward $570,000
deposit, and the Forward $325,000 deposit) that served, in form,
as security for certain of the Union Bank loans at issue (viz.,
the UB $570,000 pre-March 1984 loan, the UB $570,000 renewed
loan, and the UB $325,000 loan, respectively). Nonetheless, we
find it reasonable to infer from the evidence in the record, in
particular the evidence relating to the transactions involving
the UB $800,000 Radcliffe loan, the UB $1,300,000 loan, and the
UB $1,830,000 loan, that the interest rates applicable to and the
amounts of interest payable or paid on those deposits were always
less than the percentage interest rates on and the amounts of
interest payable or paid on the respective loans that were, in
form, secured by those deposits.
Page: Previous 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011