XN000022-1977-10-12 — Page 9

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1977

- 8.

-

TO THE BEST OF THE GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE, GODBER HAS NO ASSETS IN HONG KONG AND MUCH THE GREATER PART OF HIS ASSETS WAS OUTSIDE HONG KONG BEFORE JUNE 1973 WHEN THE QUESTION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM AROSE.

MR. HOBLEY, HOWEVER, NOTED THAT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD IMPRISONED GODBER, TWO COURSES WOULD HAVE BEEN OPEN TO HIM.

ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO ACCEPT A FURTHER 12 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT THE MAXIMUM WHICH THE LAW ALLOWS. +HAD HE TAKEN THAT COURSE, THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS TO RECOVER THE MONEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELPED.+

+THE OTHER COURSE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID, WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR HIM TO GO TO THE COURT WITH A STATEMENT OF HIS ASSETS AND THE IR WHEREABOUTS AND SEEK HIS RELEASE.+

THE LAW THEN PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR,

IN THIS CASE THE GOVERNMENT, MAY ATTACH PROPERTY WITHIN HONG KONG SO DISCLOSED, IN SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT.

+BUT GODBER HAS NO ASSETS IN HONG KONG SO THAT TAKES US

NOWHERE, MR. HOBLEY SAID.

HE SAID, ALTERNATIVELY, THE CREDITOR COULD OPPOSE THE APPLICATION FOR RELEASE BUT ONLY IN NARROWLY DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DID NOT APPLY IN GODBER'S CASE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID HE DID NOT THINK THAT GODBER WOULD BE ABLE TO THWART THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS IN ENFORCING THE JUDGMENT IN THE LONG RUN,

19

-