The Panel noted that several of the auditors had included pre invasion client lists in support of their claims.

The plaintiff paid damages to his customer and demanded the same amount as damages from the defendant.

While services such as translation can help claimants, the Panel notes that claim preparers have done a grave disservice to their clients if they have encouraged them to inflate their claims or fabricate or alter documents, or if they themselves have procured or submitted altered or fabricated documents on behalf of their clients.

The losses are based on the claimant's business relationships with specific customers located throughout the Middle East region.

2.13 After receipt of further information, the Regional Public Prosecutor, on 18 June 2003, made the following recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), in relation to prosecution of the above DPP accepted them on 6 August 2003 Mr. Rindal and Mr. Warming should be prosecuted under section 266 (b) (1) for their statements at the party conference.

The Panel found that there were no matches between the client lists and the claimants in this instalment who provided pre invasion accounts purportedly prepared by these auditors.

There are C5 BA and C5 SOS claims in the fourth instalment.

As a result of the above described procedures and excluding the impacts from exchange rate fluctuations in 2003, we noted minor overexpenditures within single budget lines.

Sony's got an idea Sony's our biggest customers right now.

losses claimed on the C5 quot page related to bank accounts located in Kuwait See the discussion of C5 quot bank accounts located in Kuwait in the Second Report, at paras. 42 43. and

C5 claims are for losses relating to bank accounts and stocks or securities.

In connection with the evacuation, the Claimant alleges that it paid for buses, catering services and chartered aircraft for its evacuees.

(1) such insurance business behaviors as ad, product development, sale, insurance acceptance, claims settlement, preservation, anti money laundering, customer service and handling of customer complaints, etc.

The Panel reviewed the file and concluded that the correct amount of compensation recommended for the D5 (bank account) losses should have been USD 116,470.59.

Customer identification and knowledge of the customers

The Panel therefore recommends awardsan award of compensation in respect of one C5 SOS claims and no awards of compensation in respect of C5 SOS claims and all C5 BA claims in the fourth instalment.

Iran, therefore, could have included these claim units in the submissions that it filed within these deadlines.

At times the claim preparers appeared to be more familiar with the claims than the claimants.

In the view of the Panel, this should involve the services of a qualified senior epidemiologist.

The plaintiff apos s damages caused by its liability to its customer could be claimed under article 74 CISG because such damages are foreseeable if goods are sold to a dealer who intends to resell them.

Of these claims, the Panel recommends awards of compensation for two claims, while no awards are recommended for the remaining 16 claims.

One claim in the sixth instalment was found to be a duplicate of a claim awarded compensation in the fifth instalment.

A total of 37 confirmed matches were identified, which related either to claims filed by the same claimant within the bedoun programme or to claims filed by the same claimant in different claim categories.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim provided additional evidence and claimed for losses in addition to those losses claimed by the E4 claimant.

Third F4 instalment, claim No. 5000450 and fourth F4 instalment, claim Nos. 5000454 and 5000466.

Your client and mine are getting married.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012259 the claimant seeks compensation of USD 4,930,795 for business losses.

gPodder Podcast Client

A KDE Blogging Client

The fourthsecond group of overlapping claims initially consisted of E4 claims related to 39seven category C claims and 24 category C and D claims.

These claims lack either the claimant's signature or evidence of authority to act on the part of the individual who filed the claim on behalf of the claimant.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3011224 the claimant asserted, in addition to her own losses, a salary loss on behalf of her husband.

First F4 instalment, claim No. 5000405.

In twofive of the individual claims identified as potentially overlapping with E4 claims, the Panel considers that the claim wass were not overlapping as the individual claimant was weres claiming losses that were related to the E4 claimant companies but were not overlapping losses (for example, where the individual claimant is seeking compensation for a loss of salary or management fee from the E4 claimant).

Client

Client

The average amount claimed for the claims in this instalment is about USD 2 million, compared to about USD 820,000 for all claims, about USD 934,000 for Jordanian claims and about USD 861,000 for Kuwaiti claims in the regular category D claims programme.

The median amount claimed is about USD 470,000 for claims in this instalment, compared with about USD 263,000 for all claims, about USD 335,000 for Jordanian claims and about USD 276,000 for Kuwaiti claims in the regular category D claims programme Approximately 75 per cent of the claims in this instalment contain D8 D9 business losses in relation to unincorporated establishments in Kuwait.

Specifically, the secretariat, in valuing the claimant's D6 (loss of income) claim, incorrectly treated it as a duplicate of the claimant's C6 (salary loss) claim, resulting in an erroneous reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant for his C6 claim.

duplicate claims Two or more claims filed by a claimant under the late claims programme in the same category.

There are also three claimants in this instalment whose individual claims for C8 Business losses were determined to be claims for corporate losses.

JordanTwo claims reported in the second instalment were found to be duplicates of claims also reported in the same instalment.

The majority of the claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims were filed by an E4 claimant and an individual claimant who was a shareholder of the E4 claimant company.

The claim preparers were often listed as the contact persons in the claim files and some claim files included attestations from the claim preparers opining on the merits of the claim.

The monitoring and assessment claims of Iran that were awarded funding in the first F4 instalment and are relevant to claim No. 5000287 are claim Nos. 5000392, 5000393 and 5000395.