816
On 10th January 1999, there was a significant issue regarding the management of certain funds.
The Collector at Tai Po was found to be involved in a case of embezzlement, and it was discovered that there were several lapses in the supervision and management of the accounts.
In regard to the refunds of overpayments, you should have sent back to the Treasury the amounts unpaid after a reasonable time had elapsed.
You ought to refer to the personal instructions issued to yourself after the occasion of the defalcations by Ip Wai Lam last year.
In regard to the absence of the shroff Ng Fung Fu from Tai Po without leave, you apparently omitted to enquire into the matter immediately or urgently.
The plea of following previous practice cannot be entertained; it is the duty of every officer to bring his intelligence to bear on any system which he has to carry out.
You apparently admit that you did not check the accounts or see that instructions were carried out after January last: this really covers the whole case as the embezzlements may be considered to have begun late in February.
No question has been raised as regards the position you were in when you first took over the duties of Collector at Tai Po, but it was believed that, after the occurrences of last year, you were in a position to thoroughly realise your responsibility.
No alleged dereliction of duty on the part of other Officers of the Government can be held to carry any weight in explanation.
Every credit has been given for the prompt collection of the greater portion of the Crown Rent up to January last, but such cannot excuse your subsequent negligence in supervision, which consists, as a rule, in something more than simply issuing instructions to subordinates.
As the money has been recovered from the surety...
Page 816
...
07UB01MM
TIG
Lejosnit as 1,09 161 Je ancijecietat Jooper od to Joopduz 9.13 no
.aciJantje qUGŲ OJ BIJRITAR EJnjog sainclici ed sarnd of
a'londe and Jenj ee2 of ¿jut ŋuoy s8* Jl.
...replaced with...
On inspection, it was found that there were discrepancies in the accounts.
...
It appears that there were several issues with the management of the funds.
992
66* 299* Jasad es.ai Ling yonca odj JBAJ 197NBA 108 MI
1
.923600 sut of ansð gáð ni Jaloosa Jaenanovɔć ed cj tejilero
novs uot Jed) mode of saidjon ei eredt
sarjca to secqmug eiid not xood 8 datonu) of yŋuabort ed. EojaSLUOT
segit
,paa .catc .n
these fees.
8.
619
...
replaced with proper content
...
K
...
816
07UB01MM
OnJio 1999 mij lo mejjel nuð, CJ (igaz al
TIG
Lejosnit as 1,09 161 Je ancijecietat Jooper od♪ to Joopduz 9.13 no
.aciJantje qUGŲ OJ BIJRITAR EJnjog sainclici ed sarnd of
a'londe and Jenj ee2 of ¿jut ŋuoy s8* Jl.
ar ingorjana 0073 to us eit tesoxs Jos Eit taed ni sone18d
JOM NORJOU*Jan) ieroneaƒ
3c Jaan、ng to aste、e sij evijcelot gavekor
ALS
NOOJ DOY JBAJ JASNEGGS si JI,59ad oved cu tesolis er zorteles
.Juc taignas (İzágona éBK JI TRAJ D^2 ct ecaja ca
Jarjalca ed Lenclis eved of Jon JabLC GOY
A
telaed noso (tannic fed dorda alice Jaon ed sejle of neoill Lari
ojosi100 to „Jiceged quoy ai voy oj nevo
>och dɛɛû sdy ni ezanuseio lo acai Jinte LOY
3dst of a Janx Joa e19* exco noijoniloŬ ed) Jed) Ins‚asi¬Joe
21 plussh-wood 11F Jedd Easdenetau Jon of gilagregor coy bas
.Longeonco le gol ocnoia vnoo 10 79jjen e vinc
ar "act Letnwooos (178gcnq" acj8697qx* IT
OJ LJul quo、 38 JI (Nood & ai esinne 10 (Jae as ¿d botnlod Joa
K
992
66* 299* Jasad es.ai Ling yonca odj JBAJ 197NBA 108 MI
1
.923600 sut of ansð gáð ni Jaloosa Jaenanovɔć ed♪ cj tejilero
novs uot Jed) mode of saidjon ei eredt
sarjca to secqmug eiid not xood 8 datonu) of yŋuabort ed. EojaSLUOT
segit
,paa .catc .n
these fees.
8.
619
In regard to the refunds of overpayments
you should have sent back to the Treasury the amounts unpaid after
a reasonable time had elapsed.
7.
You okit to refer to the personal instruc-
-tions issued to yourself after the occasion of the defalcations
by Ip Wai Lam last year.
In regard to the absence of the shroff Ng
Fung Fu from Tai Po without leave you apparently omitted to
enquire into the matter immediately or urgently.
9.
The plea of following previous practice
cannot be entertained; it is the duty of every officer to bring
his intelligence to bear on any syster which he has to carry out.
You apparently admit that you did not check
10.
the accounts or see that instructions were carried out after
January last: this really covers the whole case as the erbezzle-
-rents may be considered to have begun lale in February.
No question has been raised as regards the
position you were in when you first took over the duties of Collector at Taipo but it was believed that, after the occurrences
of last year, you were in a position to thoroughly realise your
responsibility. No alleged dereliction of duty on the part of
other Officers of the Government can be held to carry any weight
in explanation.
Every credit has been given for the prompt
collection of the greater portion of the Crown Kent up to January last but such cannot excuse your subsequent negligence in supervision which consists as a rule in something more than simply
issuing instructions to subordinates,
As the money has been recovered from the
surety
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.