TNAG-1449-FCO40-1953-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 292

- 2

under the Theft Ordinance such as obtaining property by

deception are generally in the region of 10 years'

imprisonment.

But because conspiracies to defraud often

involve the commission of several such fraudulent offences,

a higher penalty is considered appropriate.

Indeed,

in a recent case of conspiracy to defraud which involved

in excess of $30 million, the maximum penalty was imposed

and the judge criticised the fact that the power of the

Courts was limited to a seven year term of imprisonment.

4.

The Bar Association and the Law Society have

been consulted and have not objected to the proposal to

increase the maximum penalty.

However, concern has been

expressed by some members of the Bar that this proposal

might encourage the greater use of this offence by prosecutors

with the consequent risk that conspirators may receive

higher sentences than they deserve.

5.

I can assure Honourable Members that the prosecutors

will continue to advise that the most appropriate offences

should be charged. Anyhow, the Courts should in every case

impose the sentence which they think to be appropriate

to the particular circumstances, subject only to the maximum.

I see here no argument for preserving what appears to be

an inadequate sentencing power for what can be a very

serious offence. I would commend the proposal to

this

J