CONFIDENTIAL
(2)(g) records"
(2) (h)
clarify what HKG mean by "judicial or official
- RM wanted "proceeds" replaced with "value"
-
SE thought "forfeiting" could be omitted here as "confiscation" would cover this. Clarify with HKG.
(2) (j) SB to ask HK delegation to define "delivery of property"
(3) SB - to flag this up to HKG as a potential problem area and ask for clarification of their view of the matter.
RM to check possibility of excluding tax but not Customs duties. Defensible basis for such a distinction?
(RM very concerned about this exclusion lots of cases of this sort with HK at present. Would prefer to replace this subpara with the more generous provisions of the European Convention 2nd Protocol.
SB said China and HK not parties to the European Convention. There is a similar provision to this in the Caymans' MLAT .
TL said HKG would never accept inclusion of tax.
RM said in that case, second best option would be to specify tax excluded but not Customs duty. At present we can pursue unpaid duties and would want that to continue.)
WW to seek views of Inland Revenue on (3)
(2) SE
Article II
to draft amendment defining UK Central Authority.
(3) SE commented that a provision for direct approaches between juridicial authorities in urgent cases, along the lines of that under the European Convention, would be desirable. RB said China unlikely to accept this.
Article III
Insert "also" between "may" and "provide".
Article IV
(1) SB -
to ask HK delegation if "shall" can be replaced by "may" in line 1. (TL pointed out "shall" is a gift for the legal defence! Better to leave it discretionary.) Fallback position apply "shall" to (a) only and "may" to the rest.
-
CONFIDENTIAL
3
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.