of Cap. 201 is committed unless done "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse"; and subsection (4) of section 9 gives an example of "reasonable excuse" for an employee soliciting or accepting an advantage for himself, namely if his employer gives permission for such soliciting or acceptance.
21. Section 10 makes it an offence for a Crown servant or ex-Crown servant to maintain a standard of living not commensurate with, or to possess property disproportionate to, his present or past official emoluments, unless he gives a satisfactory explanation to the court as to how he was able to maintain such a standard or how such property came under his control as the case may be. The recommendation in my first report regarding section 10 has been accepted by the Legislature. Subsection (2) has been repealed; and therefore the Attorney General, before giving his consent to the institution of a prosecution is not now forced to give the suspect "an opportunity to make recommendations".
22. Section 11 emphasises that where a bribe is offered for a particular purpose [e.g. to induce a public servant to use undue influence in the promotion of a public contract] then it is immaterial whether or not that purpose could, in fact, be carried out or, if it could, whether or not the person to whom the bribe is offered intends to carry it out in any way.
23. Under Cap. 215 the maximum general penalty for corruption was a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for 2 years on summary conviction or, on conviction on indictment, a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for 5 years. Under section 12 of Cap. 201, the maximum general penalty is a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for 3 years on summary conviction; and, on conviction on indictment, a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for 7 years. How- ever, for offences under sections 5 and 6, the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. The offence under section 3 attracts lower penalties [$20,000 and 1 year's imprisonment] because that section does not deal with Crown servants abusing their official position. Section 4(2), which attracts the higher general penalty, deals with that.
24. Under section 5(2) of Cap. 215, the Court was given a discretion as regards ordering the person con- victed of corruptly receiving a bribe, to pay up the same. Under section 12 of Cap. 201 so far as offences under sections 4-9 are concerned, the Court shall make such an order. It no longer has any discretion in the matter.
25. Part III of Cap. 201 deals with powers of investigation. It was in this sphere that Cap. 215 was con- sidered to be quite inadequate. Under section 13 the Attorney General, if "satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting" that an offence under the Ordinance has been committed by any person, may, for the purpose of an investigation into such offence, authorise in writing a named police officer of or above the rank of senior inspector, or a named Crown servant, to investigate, inspect, require the production of, and obtain all information relating to, any account of any kind whatsoever, safe-deposit box, books (including banker's books, etc.), documents or articles of or relating to any person. The secrecy requirements of the Inland Revenue Ordin- ance are, however, preserved. But, subject to that, any person who fails to disclose any information lawfully required under the Attorney General's authorization, is guilty of an offence, the maximum penalty for which is a fine of $20,000 and imprisonment for one year. Equally, any person who falsely represents that such an authorization has been given by the Attorney General is liable on conviction to similar penalties.
26. Under section 14, the Attorney General may, in the course of any investigation into a suspected offence, by written notice, require the person suspected of having committed the offence and any other person who can assist the investigation or who appears to be acquainted with the facts, to submit a statement or a statutory declaration disclosing information relative to the investigation. As originally drafted, it was to be an offence for any person (including the suspect himself) to fail to comply with a notice of this kind. However, the legal advisers to the Secretary of State considered that the section in that form amounted to a departure from a fundamental principle of the British judicial system in that it could be used to compel a person, whose activities were under investigation, to make an incriminating statement during the investigation and before charges were even con- templated. They recognized that provisions of this kind were to be found under the French investigatory pro- cedure, but they considered that it was a fundamental departure from British principles. Section 14 of the Bill was therefore amended so as to make it an offence for any person other than the suspect to neglect or fail to comply with the notice, unless he could show some reasonable excuse for such neglect or failure.
27. As a general rule, what a legal adviser, in his professional capacity, learns from his client is privileged from disclosure, because of the need for full and unreserved dealings between client and lawyer. Although this privilege will not protect from disclosure communications made in furtherance of any crime, whether the legal adviser was a party to, or ignorant of, the illegal object, its protection is generally displaced only by definite evidence of illegality adduced in judicial proceedings. Consequently, the position of legal advisers in possession of privileged information which is required for the purpose of an investigation of an alleged offence under the Ordinance is regulated by section 15, which preserves the general privilege, except for certain limited exceptions expressly dealt with in this section. In the absence of such a provision, there would be a danger that persons might evade discovery by getting a solicitor to deal with the proceeds of corrupt transactions, relying on the rule
J
E
UU
-UNTIM
4
C
1
of
V
1
و
こ
t
ら