XN000022-1987-05-15 — Page 4

FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1987

ON THE SUBJECT OF ARRESTS, IT IS PROPOSED TO INSERT A NEW SECTION IN THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ORDINANCE TO GIVE ICAC OFFICERS THE POWER TO ARREST PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ARRESTED AND GRANTED BAIL FOR CORRUPTION OR RELATED OFFENCES, IF THERE IS SOUND REASON TO BELIEVE THAT BAIL HAS BEEN, OR WILL BE, BROKEN.

+POLICE OFFICERS HAVE SIMILAR GENERAL POWERS UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE,+ THE SPOKESMAN POINTED OUT.

+IT IS BOTH SENSIBLE AND PRACTICAL FOR COMMISSION OFFICERS TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE THIS POWER IN RELATION TO CASES THEY ARE INVESTIGATING. AT PRESENT THE POLICE TAKE SUCH ACTION AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION BUT THIS INVARIABLY CAUSES UNNECESSARY DELAY, THE SPOKESMAN ADDED.

ANOTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONCERNS THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY OF CORRUPT CROWN SERVANTS.

AT PRESENT, WHEN A CROWN SERVANT IS CONVICTED OF AN OFFENCE OF BEING IN CONTROL OF UNEXPLAINED PECUNIARY RESOURCES OR

IN PROPERTY DISPROPORTIONATE TO HIS EMOLUMENTS, THE COURT MAY, ADDITION TO A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE, MAKE AN ORDER FOR PAYMENT TO THE CROWN OF A SUM OF MONEY NOT EXCEEDING THE VALUE OF THE UNEXPLAINED RESOURCES OR PROPERTY.

*SO LONG AS THE ORDER REMAINS ONLY A PERSONAL DEBT, A CONVICTED PERSON MAY ARRANGE HIS AFFAIRS SO AS TO PUT HIS ASSETS OUT OF REACH, WHILE RETAINING CONTROL, AND PLEAD POVERTY, SPOKESMAN SAID.

THE

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR THE MAKING OF AN ORDER FOR THE CONFISCATION OF PARTICULAR PROPERTY FOUND AT THE TRIAL TO BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CONVICTED CROWN SERVANT, WHETHER IT IS IN HIS POSSESSION OR IN THE HANDS OF A THIRD PARTY.

THE SPOKESMAN POINTED OUT THAT SUCH POWER IS SUBJECT TO

A NUMBER OF LIMITATIONS AND SAFEGUARDS. FIRSTLY, AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MUST BE MADE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHIN 28 DAYS AFTER THE CONVICTION.

SECONDLY, WHERE THE ASSETS ARE HELD BY A THIRD PARTY, THAT PARTY MUST BE GIVEN REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE ORDER AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE MADE.

THIRDLY, NO ORDER MAY BE MADE UPON ASSETS HELD BY A THIRD PARTY IF THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT HE RECEIVED THE PROPERTY IN GOOD FAITH AND HAS SUBSEQUENTLY INCURRED SUCH EXPENSE OR OBLIGATIONS THAT IT WOULD BE UNJUST TO MAKE SUCH AN ORDER.

ALASTLY, A