TNAG-2556-FCO40-3731-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-Societies-(Amendment)-Bill-1992-1992 — Page 135

2!

3

10

Classification

OUT TELEGRAM (CONT)

CONFIDENTIAL

Caveat

Precedence

PRIORITY

scope is there for societies (eg triads) to register as ''companies'', thereby avoiding the requirements of the

Societies Ordinance?

こ

to

3

You propose that failure to notify will be an offence, but that societies which do not comply with the notification requirement will not be regarded as unlawful automatically. It is not clear who would be guilty of the offence of non-notification, or what the maximum penalties would be. At present, every society which is neither registered nor exempt is deemed to be unlawful, and it is an offence to be an

office-bearer of an unlawful society, punishable by up to five

years imprisonment. We imagine you will introduce a lower maximum penalty for non-notification.

- It is not clear in what circumstances a non-notified society

might be treated as unlawful. First TUR para 5 proposes a power to prohibit the continued operation of a society, whether notified or not, on the specific grounds permitted by Article 18 of the BOR. Failure to notify would therefore be immaterial to

the exercise of that power. Are we right to interpret para 2 of your telno 212 as meaning that non-notification alone would not in any circumstances be a ground for treating a society as · unlawful? If that is the case, would the CP be empowered to

take any action against a society whose activities were lawful but whose leaders still refused to notify even after conviction

for non-notificiation?

23

20

30

31:

321

33

34

We assume that under the amended ordinance it would not be an

offence to be a member of an unnotified society, unless it has also been prohibited on one of the grounds specified in

Article 18.

For distribution order see Page

Printed in the UK for HMSO : 91 Dd FCC3276 M 100 CCN 56294

Catchword:

STOCK No. C037C YFB7

Page 135Page 136