CO129-510-14 Report of committee of enquiry into discrepancies and losses in government departments in Hong Kong... 21-4-1928 - 24-10-1928 — Page 8

1

8

p.25

Mr. Hazlerigg's Report clearly discloses

a possibility that they were genuine signatures

obtained by fraud, and that in the great pressure of

business at the end of the year (153 cheques were

signed on the date in question, 30th December, 1927)

these three cheques, supported by cleverly forged

vouchers, slipped through and were duly signed by

the two officers. This possibility would not be

excluded by the mere assertion (perfectly honest

as it is) of the two officers that they could not have

have signed cheques for such large amounts payable

to persons unknown to them without extra careful

scrutiny.

Even if forgery of the signatures were

established to the satisfaction of the jury, there

is the further point as to the lack of precaution

in the custody of the cheque books which facilitated

the theft of the two blocks of blank cheques.

This was the kind of point I had in mind

in my minute of the 23rd of April.

Mr. Hazlerigg, citing an English case of

1909, is of opinion that this lack of precaution

would not be held to amount to such negligence as

would stop the Government from repudiating the

cheques. I am not SO sure about it, nor

apparently is the Attorney General (each case of

this kind must turn on its own special facts) but

the point would only arise if forgery of the

signatures were definitely established, and I agree

with the Hong Kong Law Officers that the difficulties

in the way of proving forgery are so great as not to

justify