CONFIDENTIAL
4
機密
A
10.
Mr Mortimer said that the advantages of the scheme were that it was simple and straightforward and entailed a minimal increase in staff. The scheme would strengthen the deterrent effect of the Ordinance. There was no requirement to trace or prove ownership of assets or to calculate profits. brief account of the proposed scheme had been included in the Discussion Document on Triads published earlier in the year: public comments on the scheme had generally been favourable, although some districts boards had suggested that the sum of $40,000 was not high enough. In reply to Mr CHUNG, Mr Mortimer said that the District boards had been consulted on the general principle of the recovery of proceeds from drug trafficking; they had not, however, been consulted on the two specific options. Mr Mortimer said that the Bar Association, in its comments on the Triad Document, had expressed reservations about the proposal, arguing that the existing fines for drug-related offences were already high enough.
11.
Mr Martin LEE asked if there was any example where a defendant had been known to be in possession of huge assets and the prosecution had asked the judge to impose a fine as well as a prison sentence. Mr Findlay said that he had no recollection of such a case. Mr Mortimer added that the prosecution normally had no information on the assets of a defendant.
12.
Mr WONG noted from paragraph 26 of the paper that major traffickers were seldom convicted and only peripheral participants were caught. He asked why, in view of this, the scheme was being proposed. Mr Mortimer said that it was important that some action should be taken to recover the proceeds of drug trafficking. The Administration had studied the practices in other countries and had concluded that, for various reasons, Hong Kong's options were very limited. The scheme was not perfect, but there would at least be some cases each year where large-scale trafficking and large sums of money would be involved. Mr WONG suggested that such cases could be dealt with by a confiscation order scheme. Mr Mortimer agreed that this was a sensible alternative, but said that a confiscation order scheme of the kind enacted in the UK required lengthy investigation to prove the existence of the assets of a defendant: under the automatic indebtedness scheme there was indebtedness regardless of the extent of a person's assets.
Confiscation Orders Scheme
13.
Mr Mortimer said that under this scheme the Court would assume upon conviction that all the assets of an offender were derived from drug trafficking and it was for the defendant to prove otherwise. The Court would then make a confiscation order and would have the power to appoint a receiver and to impose an additional prison sentence calculated on a sliding scale of up to 10 years in default of payment. The Court would also have the power to make a restraining order before
CONFIDENTIAL
機密
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.