Mr Poston, NCAD
Mr. Minter
Гривни
ERD
Reference.......
DRAFT UN CONVENTION ON ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFICKING
1.
Please refer to Cook's (Home Office) letter to you of 11 December on this subject.
2. It would be better if we sent a single FCO reply to this letter. I am therefore passing on thoughts on those areas in the Convention which concern us,
and on the point raised in paras 6 and 7 of Cook's letter. I have not consulted Legal Advisers on the wording of the text of the Convention of Martin in NTD on the Article dealing with extradition. leave these angles to you.
3.
to
Mr
May I
the
From our experience of trying to persuade other countries enter into bilateral agreements with us, we have found it is very important to have terms defined as comprehensively as possible.
In this respect I would prefer to see definition of laundering and forfeiture which appear in the earlier secretariat draft text for Article 1 of the Convention appearing in the new draft. However, the Home Office may have good reasons for accepting their omission in the revised text. Article 3 does not cause us any problems: I think the Drug Trafficking Offences Act comprehensively covers the points in this article. However, Article 5 includes provisions that we would be unable to accede to with our current legislation. The Home Office are almost certainly aware of
of the particular points.
once
confiscated.
4. On the point raised in Cook's letter, we would not want to have any commitment in the Convention on what happens to funds
they have been
We agree with the Home Office that this point should be covered in bilateral agreements where we could use it as a negotiating lever, rather than
part as
of the Convention. Their fall-back position also seems sensible, but is very much a second best and should not be cancelled lightly.
5. I hope these points will be of use to you. grateful if we could see a draft copy of your reply.
23 December 1987
Ka Staut
R N Street
I should be
Economic Relations Department