TWO executives of a deposit-taking company yesterday lost their appeal against convictions for fraud when the Court of Appeal ruled that, despite some mistakes by the trial judge, the convictions were not made unsafe or unsatisfactory. Michael Chua Yong-lim, 43, and Tan Siew-gim, 44, were convicted of conspiracy to defraud Asean Resources Finance Limited on 14 and nine counts of false accounting, respectively, after a 31/2-month trial. The Crown's case was that between July 1984 and June 1985, they agreed to siphon money from Asean Resources and indirectly from its public-listed holding company Asean Resources Ltd and the Ka Wah Bank, into accounts to which conspirators had access. This was achieved through spurious loans, some of which were notionally secured to ''borrowers'' who never received any money and claimed their signatures were forged. The Crown said the appellants concealed this by falsifying the accounts of Asean Resources Finance, which lost $126 million. Chua, who was chief executive of Asean Resources Finance, was sentenced to five years' jail. He argued through his counsel, Mr Anthony Hatton, that the trial judge, Mr Justice Ryan, had misdirected the jury on the law of conspiracy, but the Court of Appeal held that the judge's directions were impeccable. The Court of Appeal also rejected his argument that the judge failed to direct the jury on each side's arguments, saying that the judge had been even-handed. It accepted that the judge had made an error about what an expert witness had said, but held that this did not amount to misdirection. Mr Neville Sarony, QC, for second appellant Tan, a manageress who had been sentenced to three years' jail, contended that the judge erred in refusing to recall a witness for further cross-examination. However, the Court of Appeal held there was no injustice in his refusal. Mr Sarony also argued that the judge caused prejudice to Tan when he ordered that two answers she gave to the Independent Commission Against Corruption explaining why she did not have to check the details of borrowers, be edited out. The court held that the statement should have been put to the jury, but that without Tan repeating it on oath it was of little assistance to her.