Tokens: There
is
nothing
wrong
with
the
domestic
courts
’
assessment
finding
that
the
agreements
,
although
approved
by
the
general
meetings
of
shareholders
,
constituted
the
means
by
which
criminal
offences
were
committed
,
having
regard
to
the
fact
that
“
those
approvals
were
obtained
through
deceit
and
manipulation
”
(
see
paragraph
301
of
the
judgment
)
.
“
Deceit
”
may
not
feature
as
a
qualifying
element
in
either
the
offence
of
“
misappropriation
or
embezzlement
”
or
in
the
offence
of
“
stealing
”
(
see
paragraph
583
)
,
but
this
does
not
mean
,
in
our
opinion
,
that
the
domestic
courts
were
not
entitled
to
refer
to
the
existence
of
deceit
as
a
feature
that
could
transform
an
otherwise
valid
agreement
into
an
element
proving
the
existence
of
conduct
that
had
to
be
characterised
as
“
misappropriation
or
embezzlement
”
or
“
stealing
”
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O