3
12
matood they
were exposed to such seizure
the duty of the Hong Kong Government
deposits
to protect these funds from loss by enemy
Clearly
seizur by being treated as Government
funds and it is no answer to say that
this is normal Government accounting
There was no legal
procedure.
obligation to treat these funds as
Government funds nor did the beneficiaries
ask that they should be so treated.
5. It is, however, suggested in
para. lu of your despatch under reference
that there is no certainty that if the
funds had been placed in separate
accounts they would not have been
etus
A2
บ
point,
t
be
confiscated, thrush the possibility
cannot
chunk
J
existe that they woula nave escupo
I think that we have no right to
assumed that in respect of these funds
the Japanese would have ignored
international law, especially in view
of the fact that, of the Supreme Court
Deposits which were in fact credited
to separate accounts, all but one were
untouched.
/
To establish a case of the
probable confiscation of these funds
had they been placed in a special
accounts, some evidence leading to a
would therefore be
strong presumption/ necessary.
6.
Unless such a case can be made of-
any I am advised,
it would thus appear, that the Hong Kong
Government is liable to replace both the
Trust Funds and security Deposits
mentioned in your des patch under
/reference.