The matter in question relates to the decision taken regarding the execution of certain scams that are considered bad.
An objection was raised, and it was decided that the Canton decision is mainly taken judicially on the fact that the execution of the scams was bad.
The Court is to show cause, and if they show cause to the satisfaction of the Court, they will not be struck off.
As regards the first point, there is a practical difficulty in satisfying itself (as mentioned in the Couch) as to the criminal laws of certain countries, including Germany, France, Holland, and Portugal.
I see nothing improper in saying that we will not allow a company to register if it incites to commit offences within the jurisdiction.
Personally, I am more doubtful about punishing such incitement and deprecating it.
As to the second point, I don't understand why it is for the Executive to satisfy itself before moving the Court to decide.
The wording of our former letter was considered, and it was suggested that it gave sufficient direction to the Court.
The offence for which the penalty of striking off the register is imposed is to be specific.
I agree with the view that the decision is mainly with the Attorney General, who prosecutes.
I also agree with them on the first point: if there are counter-suggestions, we will welcome them.
Page 312
GR1615
16/5
The text appears to be a discussion among officials regarding the registration of companies and the jurisdiction of the courts in Hong Kong. The conversation revolves around the decision to strike off a company's registration due to its alleged involvement in inciting crimes within the jurisdiction.
The original text has been reordered and reformatted to improve readability and coherence.
GBC1615