HK 2AGG
CONFIDENTIAL
Mr Wood
Legal Advisers
تھے
Tel sent
скико
FROM: A C GAL SWORTHY, HKD
DATE: 16 October 1985
HONG KONG: PREVENTION OF BRIBERY ORDINANCE
24
1KC 382/2
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
29 OCT 1985
DESK OFFICER
INDEX
ΓΑ
REGISTRY
mction Taken
1.
I am not very happy about this, and wonder
take another look.
if
y ou
could
2.
As I understand it in 1973 we objected to legislation in
Hong Kong along the lines of that now proposed on the grounds
that it would be wrong for a Court to order the confiscation of
property belonging to a third party not involved in the case. I
think that this was primarily because of the
the provision which
allows the burden of proof that the assets were ог were not
improperly obtained to fall оп the accused rather than
prosecution. In the case of third parties there se ems to be a
double presumption: first the presumption unless proved otherwise that the assets were improperly obtained, and secondly
the presumption that they were under the control of the accused,
even though not his property.
3.
Is it the
the
I can understand why such a provision might be thought
objectionable. What I find
find difficult to understand is what has
changed between now and 1973 which causes us to remove our
apparently quite strong objections.
climate of
opinion in the UK? If So,
is the parallel in the drug
trafficking legislation an exact one? And what do we think of
Peirce's suggestion (Para 7b)
7b) that there should be limitations
on the power to make an order?
CONFIDENTIAL