2
5.
In the end the problem was avoided by what is now section 12(3). The Secretary of State did, however, acknowledge the problem of a convicted person who has diffused his ownership of corruptly acquired assets while retaining control, and suggested that there may be acceptable solutions e.g. separate forfeiture proceedings in which the Crown must prove the convicted person's ownership or control or at least a formal hearing at which third party could be heard (although this was not at that time favoured).
6.
Circumstances have changed a great deal since 1973. I enclose for your perusal an extract from the draft Executive Council Memorandum outlining the present case for a con- fiscation provision.
7.
You will note that the Memorandum states that the amendment is more stringent than the recommendation proposed by the Hodgson Committee report. This is because
8.
-
(a) the assets may not be directly traceable to
corrupt money;
(b)
the Committee did recommend that an order should not be made if an asset had been purchased bona fide for value or if, due to some action taken by the third party in relation to the property, the order would be unjust in the circumstances. It is still for consideration whether such provision should be inserted.
In view of the history of these provisions I should be most grateful for your advice on the acceptability of the amendment to the Secretary for State.
9.
We are anxious to proceed with the legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Yours sincerely,
(A.B.S. Pierce)
Deputy Law Draftsman (Ag.)
How?