CONFIDENTIAL
- 5
機密
proceedings were instituted to prevent the defendant's assets from being transferred to a third party. The main difference between the UK scheme and the scheme proposed for Hong Kong was that, while the UK scheme required a court order for restraining a defendant's assets, in Hong Kong it was proposed that the Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner of Customs and Excise should have powers to direct that a suspect should not dispose of his assets: this would bring the scheme into line with the powers given to the ICAC Commissioner in corruption cases.
14.
Mr Martin LEE questioned the proposal to give powers to the two Commissioners and suggested that Hong Kong, like the UK, should require court orders to be made for the restraint of property. Applications for the orders could be made ex parte. Mr Findlay said that he saw no objection to this suggestion.
15.
Mr Mortimer drew Members' attention to the provisions in paragraphs 36 and 37 allowing for court orders to prevent the disposal of property held by a third party on behalf of the suspect and to allow applications for compensation for any substantial loss suffered as a result of restraining orders. Referring to the proposal in paragraph 38 to create an offence of handling the proceeds of drug trafficking, Mr David LI said that in the U.S.A. the law required anyone who took into the country more than US$10,000 to declare it to the authorities. Similarly, any bank handling a transaction of more than US$10,000 had to report it to the authorities. There was no such provision in Hong Kong and the business and banking community hoped that there never would be: without such a provision, however, the proposal would be difficult to
implement, and a bank that did offer information would probably gain a bad reputation among its clients, who would suspect that the bank was not protecting their interests. Mr LI suggested that an additional provision should be added to protect banks volunteering information and requiring that their names should not be disclosed in court. Mr Martin LEE said that the word "might" on the penultimate line of paragraph 38 was too vague. Mr WONG agreed and said that great care would have to be taken in drafting the legislation.
16.
Referring to paragraph 39, Mr Mortimer said that reciprocal arrangements with other countries for the enforcement of confiscation orders could be made.
17.
Mr Mortimer said that the cost of the proposal would be about $9.16m a year, which would mainly be spent on staffing. In reply to Mr Martin LEE, Mr Mortimer said that even if no investigation was undertaken in one particular year the staff would still have to be paid for, although they would probably be employed in other narcotics work.
18.
Mr Mortimer said that in paragraph 42 it was proposed that special powers of investigation similar to those vested in the ICAC should be given to the Commissioner of Police and the
CONFIDENTIAL
機密