XN000022-1987-07-08 — Page 50

48

WELNESDAY, JULY 8, 1987

HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD PROPOSED THAT A FURTHER ADDITIONAL THREE MONTHS EXTENSION SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHERE MAGISTRATE WAS SATISFIED THAT AN INVESTIGATION COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE EXISTING TIME LIMITS OF NINE MONTHS, PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF COMF. E AND EXTENSIVE CORRUPTION-REL: TED COMMERCIAL FRAUDS.

HE SAID THE OMELCO SECURITY PANEL WAS NOT IN FAVOUR OF THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EXTENSION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE DETENTION OF TRAVEL DOCUMENTS COULD CAUSE GREAT INCONVENIENCE AND HARDSHIP TO PERSONS SUCH AS BUSINESSMEN WHO HAD TO TRAVEL FREQUENTLY.

HE SAID HE WAS PLEASED TO NOTE THAT THE ADVICE OF THE ...NEL HAD BEEN HEEDED AND THE LAW NOW REMAINED UNCHANGED.

HE SAID ANOTHER AREA WHICH THE AD HOC GROUP FOCUSSED ITS ATTENTION RELATED TO THE NEW PROVISION WHEREBY INCOME FROM PROPERTY MIGHT BE FREEZED.

||

**IN APPLYING THIS NEW PROVISION, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE SUSPECTED PERSON MAY BE LEFT WITHOUT MEANS TO SUPPORT HIMSELF OR HIS FAMILY OR TO PAY FOR LEGAL ADVICE OR REPRESENTATION, HE SAID.

GOVERNMENT'S

MEMBERS' CONCERN WAS SOMEWHAT ALLAYED BY THE ASSURANCE THAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS ALWAYS PREPARED TO CONSIDER SYMPATHETICALLY AN APPLICATION FOR "NECESSARY EXPENSES" FURTHERMORE J THE SUSPECTED PERSON MIGHT APPEAL AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION, HE SAID.

HE ALSO SAID THE GOVERNMENT HAD ACCEPTED THE AD HOC GROUP'S PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH A THIRD PARTY COULD APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER FOR CONFISCATION FROM 14 DAYS TO 28 DAYS.

"SINCE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY APPLY FOR AN ORDER FOR CONFISCATION WITHIN 28 DAYS, IT WAS FELT THAT TO BE CONSISTENT, THE THIRD PARTY SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED 28 DAYS TO APPEAL," HE SAID.

ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT} BILL 1987, MR WONG SAID THE AD HOC GROUP WAS SATISFIED THAT THE RANGE OR SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATORY POWERS HAD NOT BEEN EXTENDED BY THE INCLUSION OF THE NEW OFFENCES UNDER CLAUSE 4.

BY

THE GROUP WAS ALSO SATISFIED THAT THE POWERS OF ARREST THE BILL WERE NO MORE AND NO LESS THAN THOSE NOW EXERCISED OFFICERS UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE.

UNDER POLICE

/49

Page 50Page 51