CONFIDENTIAL
particular case there are substantial arguments against
doing so.
PREVENTION OF BRIBERY ORDINANCE
12.
Section 10 (of your paragraph 18). We are not
opposed to the extension in principle, provided that
the relationship is carefully defined (with the quali-
fication that, as you know, there is a latent possi-
bility of political trouble about the whole section
anyway). Perhaps you could provide us with suggested
wording? The wording of Section 21(2) which is
referred to in paragraph 126 of the second Blair-Kerr
report seems somewhat self-defeating in this context,
since the prosecution would presumably first have to
show that there was reason to believe that the third
party was holding the property etc for or on behalf
of the accused, before the accused had to explain its
acquisition.
13.
Minimum penalty. We agree, but with the comment
that the difficulty seems to be to secure a conviction
rather than inadequate penalties.
14.
Right of Silence.
15.
(Your para 21.) We agree.
Implications of failure to give evidence. We
agree with the recommendation in paragraph 164 of the
Blair-Kerr report, but not with paragraph 165. The
recommendations of the Law Commission referred to
particularly in the latter paragraph are still subject
to public discussion here and the Government have not
so far expressed any view upon them. We should much
prefer not to see them adopted in the limited context
of bribery cases in Hong Kong at any time when the
/Government
Мих
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN