Coll 28/39 ‘Persia: Printed Correspondence 1929-1936’ [‎266v] (543/1174)

(95)
Despatch from His Majesty’s Charge d’affaires, Tehran, to
Foreign Office, London, No. 325, dated the 1st July 1933 HE
(Copy to India No. 133, Baghdad, No. 49 .)
The major sensation of the past week has been the further trial of th
former Minister of Court, Teymourtache, and the simultaneous proceeding
against the opium concessionnaire, Haji Mirza Habibullah Amin (formerly
Amin-ut-Tujjar), on charges of bribery. The Persian press has evidently
been instructed to publish the details of the trial in full, as every newspaner
of importance has devoted many columns to verbatim reports of the aruu
ments used. The fullest account is to be found in the newspaper Tran’"
its reports arc still continuing, although judgment was issued on the evpn'
ing of the 25th June, the second day of the trial.'
2 . The trial opened on Saturday morning, the 24th June, in the
Criminal Court for Government Servants, under the presidency The name given to each of the three divisions of the territory of the East India Company, and later the British Raj, on the Indian subcontinent. of Mirza
Abdul Ali Khan Lutfi Larijani. The two accused were present in person
accompanied by their advocates; for Teymourtache, Mirza Ahmad Khan
Muqbil, and for Amin, three well known lawyers (one of them being the
former Armenian deputy, Dr. Aghayan). The record states that Teymour
tache gave his name as simply Abdul Hussain Teymourtache, and declared his
age as fifty. When asked what his occupation was, he replied ‘None’ When
pressed to give some occupation he replied that he was previously in Gov
ernment service. As for his domicile, he gave it as ‘In prison’.
3. The accusation had been carefully prepared and took a long time to
read. Teymourtache was accused of accepting from Amin a bribe amount-
ing to nine thousand pounds, and two hundred thousand Rials and of
defrandintc the Government of a like amount. Haji Amin was accused of
f 1V tn S l tt>e a r b °r-aT ntl T ed c SUmS ^ bril)es t0 a Government servant contrary
to the law forbidding; bribery of government servants; of committing a
breach of trust towards the government, and of embezzlement of a sum’of
whole hUndre<J th0USand Rlals the P r °P ert y of the Opium Concession as a
tool- 't accllsed had pleaded not guilty, some preliminary fencing
lmnal P W hi h J 7 He ex P Ialned to the President of the Tri
bunal that he had received the sums mentioned in the accusation as a loan-
the concessionnaire had gained a large sum from his monopoly of exncr ’
asked Xtr hThad ^^e to draw an advance When
naid to him hv rhenno u re ‘; el P t '’ le re plied that the amounts were
his si<matnrp thereon r f s °f exchange, which could be produced with
anyXangemeM as to inL r0 ° i When asked whether there was
to be settled when the I r6S ’ 6 re phed that the question of interest was
Finance.d 6 ^ G ° Ve “
the accusa e tions\ hC ^TdXsof U the 1 fiM ad0 ? l0ng statement in su PP or t <>f
which the sums of ninp ^ ^ 6 ^? ancia ^ 0 P er ations in the course of
were paid over are comnlipot ^ an< ^ ^ wo ^ unc ^ re d thousand Rials
r ent o the nuhlic nro'^ u and 1 Wl11 not ‘rouble you with a full state-
.^;^t :raHe? “LXw’ , Br ^> th ey amount to
Government, through Teymourtache r gra ", te » 1 . n Oct ober, 1930, the
one hundred and fifty thousand pounds worth^f that l 1167 reql l‘ red
Tomans 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value. to the Pound As the Pound ° f ? xchan S e at the rate of six
stated that such an operatmn was mpass . e ihe d" t0 "d " 0 T T anS ’ d^’d
to fify thousand Pounds and certain n?he V h . demand was then reduced
in the end, no exchange’ was actuallv snW a< ! JU were made whereby,
that it had been sold was given a.mi wi' at a ’ but a certificate stating
to Teymourtache & ’ ant ^ certain sums were paid over by Am in