20
? Agree
I do not think that
Сев
this showed necessarily Accor Cel Heeping dogs Eve!
Jes ? The Palestine
dfinition showed be Suggested.
I dritten a definition"
вы
Come co
نستا
Section 6. This enables the Registrar of
Companies to impose fines on companies. This has
already been pointed out to be objectionable by
Mr. Roberts-Wray in his minute of 13/7, and Sir P.
Ezechiel and the B. of E. also consider it objection-
able, and suggest that there should be some right of
appeal.
I at ineled agree that this should be
so, but it is pointed out that the Clause follows
Section 298 of the Straits Settlements Ordinance, and
if we press for its amendment here, similar action should no doubt be taken on the relevant file in
regard to the Straits Ordinance.
Section 353(1). Sir P. Ezechiel points out that
it is difficult to determine what is a banking
business. The Falestine Ordinance refers to a company
which has as its object, or one of its objects, the
carrying on of banking business, which does not take us
very much further. It does, however, make it clear
that the provision applies to a firm, any part of whose
business is concerned with banking, and we might
of the definition, therefore suggest e inclusion in the Ordinance.
Sir F. Ezechiel also asks what is the remedy for a
I presume that in this
case Section 379 would apply, as also for breaches of sub-section (2)
the
altekin to the fours breach of this sub-section.
Mia Parchand law.
we.).
Lee munnite
yes
The B. of E. point out that the minimum
amount of capital is left to the discretion of the
Governor in Council, and wonder whether some general
The amount oned be frond àirection ought not to be included as to the desirable
anmaation to the amount
Ghiamers e.g. deports
minimum. I think the answer to this is that the size
of banking companies probably varies very largely in
Hong Kong, and that it will not be of much value to
fix any very definite minimum by Ordinance. I doubt
if we need comment on this point to the Governor.
Section 353(3).
Page 20Page 21