(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
at (vi), unlawful confinement and taking a hostage;
at (xviii), offences against the laws relating to protection of public health and the environment;
at (xxi), offences relating to unlawful escape from custody;
at (xxii), offences against the laws applying to the import and export of historical and archaeological items;
at (xxiii), facilitating, for gain, the illegal immigration of persons;
at (xxiv), offences created as a result of decisions of international organisations which are binding on the Parties;
at (xxv), offences involving fraud relating to fiscal matters, taxes or duties; and
(g)
(h)
at (xxvi), offences relating to possession or laundering of proceeds obtained from the
5.
commission of any offence for which surrender may be granted under this Agreement.
A conduct test was agreed. [see Article 2(3)]
Article
2(3) in the Model Agreement was not adopted because convictions 'in absentia' are not possible under Hong Kong or Canadian law.
6.
Article 2(4) was included to define precisely the relevant point in time at which double criminality must be assessed.
ARTICLE 3
7.
Canada agreed that Hong Kong could have a right to refuse the surrender of nationals but did not wish to reserve an equivalent right to itself. It nevertheless insisted that, where this right was exercised by Hong Kong, Canada should be entitled to request that Hong Kong consider prosecution. We explained that Hong Kong had very limited extra-territorial jurisdiction and that we would, in any event, usually take the view that prosecution would be inappropriate. Canada understood this but nevertheless considered such a requirement important so that the Agreement would, on its face, allow a national, in respect of whom surrender had been refused, to be prosecuted. In effect, Canada wanted the requirement inserted for presentational reasons. It is important to note that the obligation is only to consider prosecution action; there is no obligation to actually prosecute.