18-JUN-1993
19:46
HK GOVERNMENT HOUSE
- 2
852 521 1868
P.03
(b)
If the trial could be heard, for example, if Mr Uwe Kaiser returned voluntarily to Hong Kong, then the Court would determine at the end of that trial how the property, which Mrs Kaiser claims is hers, would be dealt with. cannot, of course, be released in the meantime since it would be needed as an exhibit at the trial. As for the length of time that the property would have to remain in ICAC custody, this would entirely on whether when Mr Uwe comes to trial in Hong Kong. he returns voluntarily, ICAC will have to hope that he is arrested in another country from which Hong Kong can extradite him.
depend
Kaiser
Unless
I
am advised by ICAC that you can use any of the information in the case note in your reply to Mr Klaus Kaiser. The positive assurance that he wants "from a position of the authority" is quite simply the Law in Hong Kong, which is quoted at length in Mr Shanahan's letter to him of 6 March 1991.
You might want to make the point that the only way that the problem
problem of the property involved in the case, which Mr Uwe Kaiser does not agree belongs to his wife, can be resolved is if Mr Uwe Kaiser were to return or be returned to Hong Kong to face trial.
You could also add that if Mr Klaus Kaiser were to be in touch with his brother-in-law and were to learn that he would like to return Hong Kong voluntarily to face trial, then he could invite him to get in touch with Mr A C Morris, the ICAC case officer, on 852-544 2947.
For your own information, ICAC do not expect Mr Klaus Kaiser to turn himself in, but I suppose they live in hope. In February 1989, he actually indicated that he might be prepared to come back to give evidence against other corrupt members of the Swire Group in return for immunity from prosecution. But he did not then provide to
the information necessary
ICAC
on
a
"non-prejudicial" basis to enable them to assess his worth as a witness. So, this way forward
appears to be blocked for the time being.