TNAG-0259-FCO40-295-Legislation-for-prevention-of-bribery-in-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 183

-2

I should not have thought that the courts would

find the wording of clause 10 too difficult.

If the accused

could establish, to the court's satisfaction, that he had

borrowed money, or had large gambling debts, then this would,

I think, be a satisfactory explanation. However, it may be

that some modification of the clause might be made to help

the courts in their interpretation of the clause, if this

would make it easier for the F.C.0. to accept it.

Perhaps

it could be made clear that an explanation would be "satisfactory"

if the accused establishes that the money was not acquired

by virtue of any offence under Part II of the Bill (or the

repealed Prevention of Corruption Ordinance).

If he received the money by other illegal means

(e.g. because he forged currency) why should we be so sensitive

about him having to admit this to obtain an acquittal on a

bribery charge?

Clause 13.

I confirm that it was not intended to confer any

powers of investigation on anyone except on Crown servants.

Clause 14.

Unless the power to obtain information is, potentially

at least, comprehensive, it will be of little use. In

practice, I do not think that the power will be much needed

save in relation to a suspect and his immediate relations.