XN000022-1987-05-27 — Page 7

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1987

5

HE ADDED THE LATEST REVIEW HAD SHOWN THE NEED FOR A MODEST NUMBER OF CHANGES TO BOTH THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ORDINANCE WHICH IS THE COMMISSION'S CHARTER, AND THE PREVENTION OF BRIBERY ORDINANCE WHICH CONCERNED ITS OPERATIONS.

HE SAID THE BILL CONTAINED A NEW PROVISION SEEKING FOR CONF ISCATION ORDERS BE MADE OF THE PROPERTY OF CROWN SERVANTS CONVICTED OF BEING IN CONTROL OF UNEXPLAINED WEALTH.

+ IT IS AN ESSENTIAL DETERRENT TO CORRUPTION THAT NEITHER AN OFFENDER NOR HIS CLOSE RELATIVES AND ASSOCIATES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF HIS CORRUPTION, HE SAID,

HE POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL MONETARY PENALTY ORDERS WERE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE IN 1974 AND MORE THAN 20 SUCH ORDERS HAD BEEN MADE SINCE THE PROVISIONS WERE INTRODUCED.

HOWEVER, HE EXPLAINED, IN A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CASES, RECOVERY HAD BEEN ONLY PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL AND THEN ONLY AT THE EXPENSE OF LENGTHY COURT PROCEEDINGS BY THE CROWN.

+SO LONG AS AN ORDER REMAINS A PERSONAL DEBT, A CONVICTED PERSON MAY ARRANGE HIS AFFAIRS SO AS TO PUT HIS ASSETS OUT OF REACH WHILE RETAINING CONTROL -- AND THEN PLEAD POVERTY, + MR THOMAS SAID.

MR THOMAS EXPLAINED THAT AS THE TRIAL OF A CROWN SERVANT ALWAYS INVOLVED A CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE ASSETS IN HIS CONTROL AND AN IMPLICIT FINDING, IF HE WAS CONVICTED, THAT SOME OR ALL OF THOSE ASSETS REPRESENTED THE PROFITS OF HIS CORRUPTION.

+ IT SEEMS LOGICAL THAT THERE SHOULD BE A MORE DIRECT PROCEDURE FOR TAKING HOLD OF THOSE ASSETS IDENTIFIED AS TA INTED, WHETHER THEY ARE IN THE HANDS OF AN OFFENDER OR A RELATIVE OR AN ASSOCIATE, HE ADDED.

ANOTHER PROVISION INTRODUCED WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE MAKING BY THE DISTRICT COURT OR HIGH COURT OF AN ORDER FOR CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY IN THE CONTROL OF THE CONVICTED PERSON TO A VALUE NOT EXCEEDING THE VALUE OF ASSETS THE ACQUISITION OF WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED.

HE ADDED THAT SUCH POWER WAS SUBJECT TO A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS AND SAFEGUARDS.

+FIRST, THE 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 PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON CONVICTED, THEN THAT OTHER PERSON MUST BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ORDER SHOULD NOT BE MADE.

/+THIRDLY, NO