GRIORITY
CYPHER/CAT A
GPS 850
FM HONG KONG 15094GZ
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
123
269
TO PRIORITY FCO TELNO 1181 OF 15 OCTOBER. 1973.
16
MY TELEGRAM 891
WICK 14/7
ח
249
SOLICITOR HAS SUBMITTED NO REPEAT NO CASE TO ANSWER
IN RESPECT OF CHARGES UNDER SEC. 10 OF THE PREVENTION OF BRIBERY ORDINANCE. THHE JUDGE IS EXPECTED TO RULE ON THIS SUBMISSION ON 19 OCTOBER. WE HAVE CONSIDERED WHAT ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN IF THE SUBMISSION IS SUCCESFFUL AND IF THE CROWN CANNOT APPEAL ON A POINT OF LAW. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF A FURTHER CHARGE (SEE PARAGRAPH 2), BUT THIS IS AT PRESENT NO MORE THAN A POSSIBILITY. THEREFORE IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE SHOULD BE IN A POSITION TO ANNOUNCE ON 19 OCTOBER, IF NECESSARY, WHAT FURTHER STEPS ARE TO BE TAKEN ABOUT
2. WE HAVE FIRM EVIDENCE (IN THE FORM OF COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS) OF A VERY LARGE SUM OF MONEY (DM THREE HUNRED AND FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND) IN AN ACCOUNT OF
IN A GERMAN BANK. WE ARE
CONFIDENT THAT HE CANNOT CREDIBLY EXPLAIN HIS ACQUISITION OF
THESE RESOURCES.
3. THERE MAY BE DIFFICULTY IN PROVING THE EXISTENCE AND DETAILS OF THE ACCOUNT IN COURT PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PARTLY BECAUSE WE ARE DEPENDENT ON THE EVIDENCE OF GERMAN POLICE OFFICERS. THE LATTER MAY NOT BE PERMITTED TO COME TO HONG KONG TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 10
BECAUSE THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING OFFENCE UNDER GERMAN LAW.
4. SUBJECT TO
BEING GIVEN AN OPPORUTNITY TO EXPLAIN THE POSITION WE BELIEVE THAT THIS ONE BANK ACCOUNT ALONE (THERE ARE PROBABLY OTHERS IN HIS OR HIS WIFE'S NAME AND THERE WAS ALSO AN EARLIER ACCOUNT IN 1971) IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE UNDER CCR 55 WITHOUT RETIREMENT BENEFITS, ON THE GROUND THAT HE CONTROLLS RESOURCES FAR BEYOND THOSE WHICH COULD BE JUSTIFIED BY HIS SALARY. NO DOUBT YOUR LEGAL ADVISERS WILL CONFIRM OUR VIEW THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A SUCCESSFUL ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL DISMISSAL IS
REMOTE IF CR 55 IS USED.
CONFIDENTIAL
/5. IF THE PRESENT.