TNAG-1430-FCO40-1913-Hong-Kong-Independent-Commission-Against-Corruption-(ICAC)-1985 — Page 42

HK 2AGG

CONFIDENTIAL

Mr Wood

Legal Advisers

تھے

Tel sent

скико

FROM: A C GAL SWORTHY, HKD

DATE: 16 October 1985

HONG KONG: PREVENTION OF BRIBERY ORDINANCE

24

1KC 382/2

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

29 OCT 1985

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

ΓΑ

REGISTRY

mction Taken

1.

I am not very happy about this, and wonder

take another look.

if

y ou

could

2.

As I understand it in 1973 we objected to legislation in

Hong Kong along the lines of that now proposed on the grounds

that it would be wrong for a Court to order the confiscation of

property belonging to a third party not involved in the case. I

think that this was primarily because of the

the provision which

allows the burden of proof that the assets were ог were not

improperly obtained to fall оп the accused rather than

prosecution. In the case of third parties there se ems to be a

double presumption: first the presumption unless proved otherwise that the assets were improperly obtained, and secondly

the presumption that they were under the control of the accused,

even though not his property.

3.

Is it the

the

I can understand why such a provision might be thought

objectionable. What I find

find difficult to understand is what has

changed between now and 1973 which causes us to remove our

apparently quite strong objections.

climate of

opinion in the UK? If So,

is the parallel in the drug

trafficking legislation an exact one? And what do we think of

Peirce's suggestion (Para 7b)

7b) that there should be limitations

on the power to make an order?

CONFIDENTIAL