HK 2AGG
CONFIDENTIAL
7
pa
Mr Wood
Legal Advisers
FROM: A C GALSWORTHY,
DATE: 16 October 1985
HKD
MKKC 382/2
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
17 OCT 1985
REGISTRY
DESK OFFICER
INDEX
PA
Action Taken
HONG KONG: PREVENTION OF BRIBERY ORDINANCE
ख
1.
take another look.
I am not
very happy about this, and wonder
if you
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
third party not involved in the case. I
think that this was primarily because of the provision which
allows the burden of proof that the assets were ог were not
improperly obtained to fall on the accused rather than the
prosecution. In the case
third parties there se ems to be
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.
causes
I s it the
is the parallel
a
thought
is what has
I can understand why such a provision might be
objectionable. What I find difficult
find difficult to understand
changed between now and 1973 which
apparently quite strong objections.
opinion in the UK? If So, trafficking legislation an exact one? And what
Peirce's suggestion (Para 7b) that there should
on the power to make an order?
Us to remove Our
climate of
in the drug
do we think of
be limitations
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.