WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 1987
47
EFFORTS AGAINST CORRUPTION BOOSTED
*
THE HON PETER C. WONG TODAY (WEDNESDAY) SUPPORTED TWO BILLS WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SOUGHT TO EMPOWER THE COURT TO ORDER THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY FOUND AT A CORRUPTION TRIAL TO BE IN THE CONTROL OF THE CONVICTED CROWN SERVANT, WHETHER IT WAS IN HIS POSSESSION FOR IN THE HANDS OF A THIRD PARTY.
THE TWO PIECES OF LEGISLATION WERE THE PREVENTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1987 AND THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1987.
OF
BRIBERY AGAINST
SPEAKING IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, MR WONG SAID CLAUSE THE PREVENTION OF BRIBERY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1987 WAS WITHOUT DOUBT MOST IMPORTANT.
4 OF THE
THE
IN THE 10(1) (B) RESOURCES
THAT CLAUSE PROVIDED FOR THE MAKING OF AN ORDER FOR CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY OR PECUNIARY RESOURCES FOUND TO BE CONTROL OF A CROWN SERVANT WHO WAS CONVICTED
OF A SECTION OFFENCE, THAT WAS BEING ON CONTROL OF UNEXPLAINED PECUNIARY OR PROPERTY DISPROPORTIONATE TO HIS OFFICIAL EMOLUMENTS.
HE SAID THAT WHILE ACCEPTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S VIEW THAT THE NEW POWER WAS NECESSARY FOR THE BETTER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE LEGCO AD HOC GROUP WHICH STUDIED THE TWO BILLS HAD PAID PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE NEED TO PROTECT INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES AND THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION.
HE SAID THE AD HOC GROUP WAS SATISFIED THAT THE LIMITATIONS AND SAFEGUARDS IN THE BILL WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROTECTION FOR INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES.
THE SAFEGUARDS WERE THAT THE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR CONFISCATION MUST BE MADE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHIN 28 DAYS AFTER THE CONVICTION AND THAT THE THIRD PARTY CONCERNED MUST BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ORDER SHOULD NOT BE MADE.
ANOTHER SAFEGUARD WAS THAT NO ORDER MIGHT BE MADE UPON ASSETS HELD BY A THIRD PARTY IF THE THIRD PARTY SATISFIED THE COURT THAT AN ORDER WOULD BE UNJUST IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
FURTHERMORE, A CONFISCATION ORDER AND A MONETARY PENALTY ORDER COULD NOT BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSETS, AND THE THIRD PARTY WAS GIVEN A RIGHT OF APPEAL.
MR WHICH
TURNING TO THE POWER TO DETAIN A SUSPECT'S TRAVEL DOCUMENT, WONG NOTED THAT UNDER THE EXISTING LAW, THE MAXIMUN PERIOD FOR TRAVEL DOCUMENT MIGHT BE DETAINED WAS SIX MONTHS WITH A POSSIBLE EXTENSION FOR A FURTHER THREE MONTHS ON APPLICATION TO A MAGISTRATE.
/HE ALSO