Very curious
A CAMERA belonging to me was stolen and a report was made to the police. To their credit, they found it in a pawnshop some days later. But that was only the start of some very curious dealings.
After waiting several months for the police to catch the criminal (unsuccessfully), I requested that my camera be returned to me.
I had already proved ownership via serial numbers, credit card dockets, etc.
I was informed by the police that in order for me to have my own, already paid for in full property returned to me, I would have to pay the pawnbroker the amount he had loaned the thief who stole it.
Thus, wittingly, the law as it stands, forced me, already the legal owner of this camera, to become, as I understand it, a de facto receiver of 'stolen' property. Very, very unwillingly, I forked over the HK$800 to the pawnbroker so I could retrieve my camera.
Perhaps the Attorney-General Jeremy Matthews - or some other responsible person in his office - can explain to me why I, as legal owner, am forced by the law, for which he is responsible, into a situation such as this. To my knowledge, in countries elsewhere, rightful 'ownership' does not involve fiscal penalty to owners of property, nor does it place them in the invidious position of being a 'receiver of stolen property'.
CHRISTOPHER BAKER Causeway Bay
