TNAG-1995-FCO40-2842-Drug-trafficking-in-Hong-Kong-1989 — Page 176

Our reference

Your reference

HOME OFFICE

Queen Anne's Gate LONDON SWIH 9AT

Direct line 01-213

Switchboard 01-213 3000

M Karmel Esq

The Committee of London and Scottish Bankers

10 Lombard Street

London EC3V 9AP

Annex C

8Qミ

19 February 1987

Dear Mr Karmel

DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES ACT 1986

You raised with me the question whether an employee of a bank is vulnerable to prosecution under section 24 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 if he discloses a suspicion to a higher authority in the bank, in accordance with arrangements agreed with the police and

Customs and Excise, but if the suspicion is not in the event passed on to the authorities and yet the proceeds of drug trafficking have in fact been put at the trafficker's disposal, etc.

I have to say, as with any enquiry of this kind, that the Home Office has no authority to decide the law; only a court can do so authoritatively. What follows has, however, been agreed by Home Office Legal Advisers and represents our best understanding of the matter.

1

The first point to make is that, given that the police and Customs and Excise have agreed to the arrangements which banks have instituted, it is difficult to imagine that they would hold a junior employee who complied with those arrangements responsible for any culpable failure by his superiors, or that any prosecution advanced in these circumstances would succeed.

In the light of our discussion, however, we have put this understanding of the position on the record in the guidance which has been issued to those responsible for the implementation of the Act's provisions, including prosecutors. This guidance now includes a statement that, where banks and other institutions have made arrangements for reporting to a central point any suspicious transactions, the individual employee who complies with the arrangements will have discharged his or her personal duty under section, 24 and will not be at risk of prosecution by continuing to handle the suspect's account in good faith.

I think this is probably sufficient re-assurance to meet the concern expressed. For the sake of completeness, however, I ought secondly to mention also the special defences contained in subsection 4 of section 24 of the Act. Of these, subsection 4 (c) is the most

2 3 FEB 1987