File 3104/1915 Pt 2 ‘German War: conquered territory: status: question of trading; looting, etc., of goods by Turks’ [‎178v] (363/493)

issued, but slated that, in the absence of orders, commercial honesty would not
allow them to dishonour Ittihadi’s drafts. They were accordingly served with
a notice requiring them, on pain of prosecution for trading with the enemy, to
place the sum of lakhs One lakh is equal to one hundred thousand rupees in deposit, to break off all financial dealings with
Ittihadi and to dishonour all his drafts in future. At the same time they
asked for permission to telegraph to their principal, Abdul Rahman, in
Persia, and inform him that the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. had forbidden
further dealings with Ittihadi. As it was clearly desirable to impair
Ittibadi’s credit in Persia, they were allowed to send the cable; and in
pursuance of the same object telegrams regarding the dishonouring of one of
the big bills still outstanding have since been allowed to go through. Subse
quently on the recommendation of the legal advisers of Government, the notice
already given w r as supplemented by a further notice drawing attention to
paragraph 2 of Ordinance YI of 1914, the concluding words of which are
clearly applicable to the case; warning Shirazi that further dealings of any
kind, direct or indirect, with Ittihadi wall inevitably be followed by prosecu
tion ; and requiring him to place the sum of 1J lakhs One lakh is equal to one hundred thousand rupees on fixed deposit for three
months with the Bank of Bombay, to be withdrawn only on the joint order
of the firm and the Political Secretary to this Government. Copies of this
notice were sent to the principal banks also.
6. I am to submit that, although this particular channel of remittance
to Persia has apparently been securely stopped, there is nothing to prevent the
stream following other channels. During the past few days, two cables from
Ittihadi to the Credit Lyonnais, London, have been stopped in the censorship, in
which he apparently asked for remittances direct to Persia. Abdur Rahman’s
Bombay representatives gave information that such remittances are undoubtedly
passing. Another possible channel would be remittance through Java ; and
I am to say in this connection that a most unusually large amount of Dutch
paper w^as negotiated in Bombay in the early months of this year. Finallv,
although one intermediary in Bombay has been laid by the heels, there may
already be others in existence and there most certainly will be others when
Shirazi’s uselessness is discovered. The Cable Censorship affords inadequate
means o£ detection where influential banks are concerned. Cables, from
London in particular, if transmitted in an authorised code, are passed with
out question by the Censor. He could not attempt to decode the whole
number without a considerable increase of establishment: even if he did so,
a slight manipulation of names wmuld render detection almost impossible.
I am therefore to state the conviction of the Governor in Council that action
to stop German remittances at this end of the line is not likely to prove
w holly successful. Action in London is clearly necessary, if a satisfactory
result is desired. It is obvious from their communication on the subject
that the authorities in England have much fuller information regarding
these transactions than has yet reached Bombay. They know the inter
mediaries in the ail air, as w r ell as the principal banks concerned. In this
connection, it may be mentioned that a recently intercepted cable indicates
Messrs. B. Shamash Brothers and Company of 46, Bloom Street, Manchester,
as being actively interested in the remittances. The Governor in Council
desires strongly to urge that the full facts should be represented to the Secre
tary of State for India, and that His Majesty’s Government should be urged
to stop the stream of funds at the fountain head; Negotiations with the
English banks concerned and, in particular, with the Head Office of the
Imperial Bank of Persia coupled with a strict censorship of commercial cables
to the East, are likely to effect infinitely more than could be accomplished
in Bombay.
7. I am to add that a strict w*atch will be kept over the dealings of
Abdur Rahman Shirazi and Sons, and that any further developments will be
reported to the Government of India.