TNAG-0501-FCO40-566-Legislation-for-prevention-of-bribery-in-Hong-Kong-1975 — Page 37

CONFIDENTIAL

(2529)

Flag

NICK 141

1973

Elag

(45) 0(46 1kk14/18

(1970)

Flag A

Flag

Flag

6

under the new Section 12. The former question was considered by

Mr Royle at an office meeting in October (see para. 3 of Mr Youde's

minute of 16 October 1973). The problem sprang from the Law

Officers' refusal to endorse the original Section 10

(Mr Hetherington's letter of 23 September 1970), which meant that

FCO Ministers would have to defend the clause on political grounds.

At his meeting Mr Royle decided that, having agreed to the original

provision, it would be illogical to frustrate its purpose by

allowing the accused to avoid all risk by putting the property in

the name of his close relatives. He therefore agreed to the

extension.

5.

(of fortiture)

On the latter question, the Blair-Kerr report made much of

the point that the accused should not be allowed after his sentence

was complete, to enjoy his ill gotten gains. We agreed. But the

extension of this principle to property in the possession of third

parties has caused trouble. The amendments to Section 12 endorsed

by ExCo, appeared to make the third party liable. We objected

(FCO telno. 89) and the Governor has come back with a new version

(Hong Kon, telno. 130). This makes the convicted person liable

for the value of the property etc. which he is deemed to have

deposited with third parties. This is legally more respectable,

but probably will not work in practice, since unless the convicted

person has still further property which the law can lay its hands on,

there will be no way of enforcing the judgment against a third party.

Nevertheless, since the purpose of the provision is at least partly

presentational, I think we can let it go.

CONFIDENTIAL

16.