77
CHANGES IN THE LAW GOVERNING DRUG TRAFFICKING
6.110
Drug trafficking is organised to earn huge profits. The tendency of most enforcement measures has been to apprehend and to imprison drug offenders and seize the dangerous drugs, if any, with a view to forfeiture. But the profits made by the offenders have been largely ignored. Yet the vast profits made from drug offences are often in the hands of triad members. With these funds the triads are able to buy silence from witnesses to perpetuate the cycle of violence and crime by building up other criminal activities and indeed to channel the funds into legal outlets.
6.111 Any serious attempt to stamp out major drug offences must have as its ultimate aim the seizure and confiscation of the profits and property which are the proceeds of such crimes.
6.112 Governments in most countries now recognise the deep harm wrought by drugs and drug trafficking Many are introducing harsher measures to combat their particular circumstances. In late 1985, the United Kingdom Government set out proposals for new legislation to attack more effectively drug trafficking. The proposals include : a new offence of handling the proceeds of drug trafficking; powers to obtain information about the movement or disposal of the proceeds of drug trafficking; power for the courts to make interim restraint orders freezing assets; the compulsory imposition of a fine equal to the proceeds of the offence and provision for the enforcement of such a fine by realisation of any of the assets of the offender; and increased maximum periods of imprisonment to be served in default of payment of a large fine.
6.113 In Hong Kong the following similar options are now being considered, to strengthen the Dangerous Drug Ordinance, Chapter 134.
Indebtedness to the Crown
6.114 The first part of the package of options is that on conviction of prescribed offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, an offender becomes automatically indebted to the Crown in a sum calculated on the basis of $40,000 for each month of prison sentence imposed. The courts would be obliged to ignore this consequence when assessing the prison sentence. The debt to the Crown would be regarded as a civil debt, recoverable at any time at the instance of the Attorney General. The law would provide that if the offender failed to repay the debt he would be liable to an additional term of imprisonment on a sliding scale up to a maximum of ten years, depending on the debt. The onus of proof would be on the offender to satisfy the court that he was not able to pay the debt, partially or in full.