!
1
666
The Hong Kong Ordinance, although based in the main upon the United Kingdom Code, contains one or two departures from the principle of that code which are worth corrent.
stamp.
I. Kechinery of Collection.
+
The
(1) As stated by the Attomey-General for Hong Kong in his report of the 4th May, the payment of Stamp Duty in the United Kingdom is in the nature of a voluntary act. principal sanction of the Stamp Act of 1891 is mullity in evidence, 1.e. if the parties to a transaction which is carried out by a written instrument are prepared to forego any legal proceedings which will require the production of that instrument, there is no obligation upon them to stamp, Under the Hong Kong Ordinance, however, the mere execution of an instrument which is by that Ordinance made liable to Stamp Duty, gives rise to a civil debt, the duty being recoverable by the competent authority in the Colony irrespective of the desire of the parties to stamp or not to Further, the failure to stamp an instrument renders the accountable parties li ible to criminal proceedings which may terminate in payment of a fine not exceeding 10,000 and to imprisonment of any term not exceeding one year. It is difficult to see how these penalties could be successfully
sued for. It is true that under Section 40 of the Ordinance
powers of inquisition which the Attomey-General describes as
wide and severe are given to the executive, but their effect
is minimised by the provision which prohibits the taking of
penal proceedings after the lapse of two years from the date o
the offence, and, judging by English experience, in quite an
appreciable number of cases - in which the unstamped instmment
is for example a conveyance on sale or a marriage settlement, -
failure to stamp does not come to light until at least two
years have elapsed. It is assumed that in Hong Kong in such
a case the only remedy left to the executive would be the
civil action of debt.
(2)
!