Jake's View | Seizing assets with no conviction imperils rule of law

The Court of Final Appeal made a landmark ruling yesterday, upholding the Hong Kong regulator's right to seek compensation from United States fund house Tiger Asia Management over its insider dealings in the city.

Let's be a little careful here, my dear colleagues, about assuming that people have committed crimes when they have not even been tried for them.

As even the Securities and Futures Commission, now crowing over this Court of Final Appeal decision, must concede, Tiger Asia has not been convicted of insider dealing, nor even brought to trial for it.

The question is whether section 213 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance empowers the SFC, through a court order, to seize the assets of someone who it thinks may have committed insider dealing but who has not been convicted of it and may never be.

The ordinance (I hesitate to disgrace the word "law" by calling it such) says the SFC does not need a conviction in a proper court of law or even in one of its own kangaroo courts (market misconduct tribunals) to get a seizure order. What is required is only a declaration to the Court of First Instance that it "appears" to the SFC that an offence "has occurred, is occurring or may occur".