29
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1989
MR ARCULLI SAID THAT THIS CHANGE WAS IMPORTANT IN THE CONTEXT OF A NUMBER OF SECTIONS OF THE BILL WHICH DEALT WITH THE POWERS OF THE SFC TO, INTER ALIA, IMPOSE PROHIBITIONS OR REQUIREMENTS ON A REGISTERED PERSON, ON ASSETS BELONGING TO OR IN THE CUSTODY OF A
REGISTERED PERSON AND MAINTENANCE OF ADEQUATE ASSETS.
ON THE SUBJECT REGARDING ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS OF A REGISTERED PERSON AND ACCESS TO PREMISES AT WHICH SUCH RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WERE KEPT, MR ARCULLI SAID THE AD HOC GROUP FELT THAT IF A REGISTERED PERSON WISHED TO KEEP SUCH PAPERS AT HOME,
HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO PROVIDED HE NOTIFIED THE SFC AND HE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT HIS HOME WOULD THEN BE ACCESSIBLE IN THE SAME WAY AS HIS OFFICE. THE INITIATIVE RESTED ENTIRELY WITH THE REGISTERED PERSON.
AND
ON PRESERVATION OF SECRECY, MR ARCULLI SAID SECTIONS 54(2) (G) (H) OF THE ORIGINAL BILL WHICH REFERRED TO DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO OVERSEAS AUTHORITIES AND ORGANISATIONS WERE TO BE AMENDED SO THAT SUCH DISCLOSURES SHOULD ONLY BE MADE WHERE IT WAS DESIRABLE OR EXPEDIENT IN THE INTEREST OF THE INVESTING PUBLIC OR IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT THIS POWER OF DICLOSURE COULD NOT DELEGATED.
BE
+
HE ADDED THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS NECESSARY SO THAT HONG KONG 9 STATUS AS A LEADING FINANCIAL CENTRE WOULD NOT BE JEOPARDISED BY UNNECESSARY DISCLOSURES.
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE INVESTIGATION POWERS UNDER SECTION 31 WERE EXERCISABLE IN LIMITED INSTANCES THERE WAS NO DISPUTING THAT SUCH POWERS WERE WIDE AND EXTENSIVE, INCLUDING THE POWER TO REQUIRE A PERSON TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHICH MIGHT TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM.
MR ARCULLI HOPED THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD USE THIS POWER JUDICIOUSLY AND IN PROPER CASES AND CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE ANY UNFAIR OR IMPROPER USE WOULD LEAD TO PUBLIC OUTCRY AND PERHAPS A DEMAND FOR CHANGE.
MR ARCULLI ALSO NOTED THAT SOME POINTS THAT AROSE DURING THE LEGCO AD HOC GROUP SCRUTINY OF THE BILL WOULD BE REVIEWED IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THE REFORM OF SECURITIES LEGISLATION.
THESE POINTS INCLUDED:
* CONSIDERING WHETHER FUTURES TRADING OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN
INSIDER DEALING CHANGES;
* WHETHER GUIDELINES TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4(2) SHOULD
REMAIN NON-STATUTORY;
* PROVISION FOR NOTIFICATION OF AND APPROVAL FOR CHANGE IN
SHAREHOLDINGS UNDER SECTION 21(6)(A)(IV);
* WHETHER SECTION 25 CAN BE SIMPLIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF
OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE:
/*THE CONSOLIDATION