the High Court of Hong Kong for trial. The items seized from the deposit box were submitted as exhibits. When Mr Kaiser failed to appear in court in June 1988, enquiries revealed tht he had left Hong Kong clandestinely and returned to Germany. Warrants for his arrest were issued and remain effective.
I understand that efforts were made, through you, for the ICAC to interview Mrs Kaiser in England in 1987 with regard to Mr Kaiser's claim that she had removed a number of Krugerrands from their home, but that she decided not to go ahead with the meeting.
The ICAC are unable to return your sister's property to her because there are good grounds for believing that the property, either in part or in whole, represents the proceeds of corruption. Also, the property concerned was lawfully seized under the authority of a search warrant, continues to be retained lawfully and has been exhibited in a criminal proceeding which awaits determination. Once these proceedings are concluded, the property will be disposed of in accordance with the directions of the Court, pursuant to Hong Kong law. Mrs Kaiser would be at liberty to apply to the courts for possession of the property which she claims is her own, at that time, if she so wished.
I hope that this summary of the details of the case will make it clear to you why the ICAC are obliged to retain your sister's possessions. The only way that this problem can be resolved is if Uwe Kaiser were to return or be returned to Hong Kong to face trial. If you are in touch with your brother-in-law and were to learn that he would like to return to Hong Kong voluntarily to face trial, then you could ask him to get in touch with Mr A C Morris, the ICAC officer dealing with this case. His telephone number is 852-544 2947.
Yavs sncerely Bridger Bis
Bridget Paris
Hong Kong Department
bcc. Ms shepherd.
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.