CONFIDENTIAL
機密
3
LOW
been derived not from bribes but from his wife's work as a prostitute. The defendant had been acquitted of the charge. Mr LEE asked whether a similar defence could be made by a convicted drug trafficker whose property was subject to a confiscation order and who demonstrated that his property in the preceding 6 years had come not from the profits of drug trafficking but from, say, the proceeds of bank robberies. Findlay said that in such a case the defendant would have rebutted the assumption that the property had been derived from drug trafficking and that property would not be subject to a confiscation order.
7.
Members noted that the word "assumption" instead of the more usual legal term "presumption" had been used in Section 2 of the UK Act. Mr Findlay said that the reasons behind the terminology would need to be examined by the law draftsman.
8.
Mr
Mr CHUNG suggested that there might be difficulties in the term "full value" in paragraph 8 of the paper. He suggested that the term "bona fide purchaser for full value" or something to that effect should be used instead. Members agreed with Mr CHUNG's suggestion.
9.
Mr WONG asked how in practice the default of payment of the confiscation order referred to in paragraph 9 would arise, since even before prosecution the Crown would already have obtained a restraining order for the convicted person's property, and, under paragraph 8, a receiver would have been appointed after the confiscation order had been made to realise the property. Mr Findlay replied that there might not always be a coincidence between the amount of payment required by the confiscation order and the property seized under the restraint order: for example, the restraint order may have been obtained too late, enabling the suspect to dispose of some of the property, or the amount of property seized may have gradually been reduced by payments made out of the property to sustain the suspect's business. Mr LEE suggested that in order to clarify the procedures for making and executing a confiscation order the order of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the paper should be reversed.
10.
Mr LEE said that the provision proposed in paragraph 12 to make it an offence for a person to assist another in the investment or use of drug money knowing or suspecting that the other person is or has been a drug trafficker had caused concern among bankers. Mr Mortimer explained that this provision was intended to prevent the laundering of proceeds from drug trafficking by banks, which was already taking place in certain parts of the world. Mr LEE said that he was apprehensive about the word "suspecting", which could create difficulties for bankers. Mr Findlay said that the same provision already existed in Section 24 of the UK legislation, which also had a provision to protect banks and others from action for breach of contract: it would be a defence for the
GF 323
CONFIDENTIAL
機密
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.