HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 12 July 1989
香港立法局——一 一九八九年七月十二日
43
new provision containing the definition of "data equipment" will be introduced at Committee stage to replace the present provision.
Finally, I wish to mention about clause 25(3) (b) of the Bill which accords protection to a person disclosing a suspicion or belief in connection with drug trafficking against the liability arising from a breach of restriction imposed by contract. Bearing in mind that those who are most likely to come across information or document from which such suspicion or belief can be derived are professionals bound by their own code of practice, the ad hoc group suggested that the protection be extended to liabilities arising from breach of professional ethnics. This was agreed by the Administration and will be addressed at Committee stage.
Having dealt with the technical points, I wish to highlight one aspect of the Bill from which possible inequalities or hardships could arise.
As we know, the whole purpose of the Bill is to deprive the drug trafficker of his ill-gotten gains and not to enrich the government coffers at the expense of bona fide creditors. However, in calculating the monetary value of a restraint order, the vagaries of such an exercise can quite easily underestimate the amount available to satisfy creditors. An example could be a utility Bill for an apartment rented by the trafficker. I do not think that it is the intention to prejudice the rights of such creditors and I would welcome an assurance from the Administration that procedures will be put in place to prevent such an unfair
treatment.
Sir, drug trafficking is a heinous crime and I personally have much sympathy for our Asian neighbours that prescribe the death penalty for it. However, the punishment appears to have little deterrent effect on the Mr. Bigs that control and finance such activities. The ones that have been caught are more to be pitied than objects of condemnation.
This legislation should allow our enforcement agencies to attack the traffickers where it hurts, by getting at the proceeds. In order to achieve that, I would have been happy to stick to the original much higher duty from bankers and other professionals to report on mere suspicion and not the lesser duty of "having reasonable grounds to believe".
Since the Administration is prepared to accept this lesser duty, I am also prepared to follow the majority but will watch the success rate of the legislation to put the Mr. Bigs out of business. We should not hesitate to use all
?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.