TNAG-1710-FCO40-2386-Royal-visits-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 31

E/CN.7/1988/2 (Part II) page 16

39.

Several representatives considered that the practical elaboration of the provisions of the article, particularly regarding forfeiture, should be the subject of bilateral or multilateral agreements between Parties and that a provision taking this into account should be included in the convention.

90. Several representatives stressed that mutual judicial assistance between States for the tracing and seizure of proceeds from drug trafficking was essential. In that connection it was suggested that a reference to the provisions of article 5 should be inserted in the article.

One

91. Several representatives pointed to the necessity of reconsidering the definition of the term "property" as there were widely divergent interpretations as to its meaning in the context of the convention. representative objected to the broad meaning assigned to it in article 3 as it would also apply to intangible property such as copyrights and patent rights. Several other representatives stressed that both tangible and intangible property should be covered, particularly since one of the objectives of the article was to counter the source of financing of illicit traffic.

92. Commenting on paragraph 1, one representative pointed out that it contained far-reaching provisions which might be difficult to implement within the context of his country's legal system and suggested that they be qualified by some form of safeguard clause.

93.

With regard to subparagraphs 1(a) and (b), one representative indicated that there was a degree of overlap between the two subparagraphs and proposed that subparagraphs (a) and (b) be combined in a single subparagraph in order to avoid duplication. Some other representatives proposed that these two subparagraphs be deleted entirely as it was felt that they also overlapped with the provisions of article 2.

94. Several representatives indicated that it was necessary to clarify the distinction between the form of assistance envisaged in subparagraph 1(c) and the mutual judicial assistance provided for in article 5; as the provisions in article 5 seemed adequate, subparagraph 1(c) might be superfluous.

95.

Many representatives held the view that paragraph 2 should be deleted as the measures contemplated therein had already been adequately provided for in article 2. While recognizing the existence of a certain overlap, one representative indicated that there were elements in paragraph 2 which had not been included in article 2. It was suggested that these elements should be preserved and that paragraph 2 might be modified in order to eliminate duplication. With respect to the specific element relating to the knowledge that the proceeds were derived directly or indirectly from illicit traffic, irrespective of where it occurred, it was proposed that it be incorporated into article 2 or retained in a reformulated paragraph 2.

96.

It was suggested that the limitation. clause in paragraph 3 be brought in line with the formula used in article 2. Another suggestion was that it be deleted in the opening sentence and that the subparagraphs be reformulated in terms that could evoke a broader measure of acceptance, bearing in mind the difficulties of implementation that some countries could experience within their legal system.