State the issue, the law, an analysis and conclusion to the follow case:-
Mr Mehra was the managing director of Oakprime Ltd, the beneficiary under a letter of credit which had been issued by Trinidad National Bank (TNB) and confirmed by Standard Chartered Bank, London (SCB). A condition of the credit was "Shipment must be effected not later than 25 October 2014". The last date for negotiation was 10 November 2014. Loading was delayed and Oakprime was unable to ship the goods before 25 October 2014. But the shipping agents and shipowners (Pakistan National Shipping Corporation ("PNSC")) agreed with Mr Mehra to issue bills of lading dated 25 October 2014 and did so on 8 November 2014, before the goods had been shipped. On 9 November 2014, Oakprime presented the bill of lading and other documents to SCB under cover of a letter signed by Mr Mehra stating that the documents were all those required by the credit. This statement was false to the knowledge of Mr Mehra because he had himself arranged for the backdating of the bill of lading. The false statement was made to obtain payment under the letter of credit and it is agreed that if there had been no bill of lading or SCB had known that it was falsely dated, payment would not have been made. SCB authorised payment of US$10,000,000.00 on 15 November 2014. SCB then sought reimbursement from TNB. TNB, although unaware of both Mr Mehra's false dating of the bill of lading, rejected the request for payment on account of other discrepancies which SCB had not noticed. Despite further requests, SCB was unable to obtain reimbursement. SCB now wishes to sue Mr Mehra personally for fraud, but he claims he was acting on behalf of Oakprime Ltd and that the company should be liable. Advise SCB based on the laws of Trinidad and Tobago.
Issue: Whether SCB can sue Mr Mehra personally for fraud or if the liability lies with Oakprime Ltd.
Law: In Trinidad and Tobago, to prove fraud, the following elements must be established:
1. False representation: There must be a false statement or representation made by the defendant.
2. Knowledge: The defendant must have knowledge that the statement is false.
3. Intent: The defendant must have intended to induce the victim's reliance on the false statement.
4. Reliance: The victim must have relied on the false statement.
5. Damage: The victim must have suffered financial loss or harm as a result of the false statement.
Analysis: In this case, Mr Mehra made a false statement by backdating the bill of lading. He had knowledge of the false date and intended to obtain payment under the letter of credit by making this false statement. SCB relied on the false statement and authorized payment of $10,000,000.00 to Oakprime Ltd. It is agreed that if SCB had known about the false date, payment would not have been made. SCB suffered financial loss as they were unable to obtain reimbursement from TNB.
Conclusion: Based on the laws of Trinidad and Tobago, SCB can sue Mr Mehra personally for fraud. Mr Mehra's claim that he was acting on behalf of Oakprime Ltd does not absolve him of personal liability for his fraudulent actions.