Traditionally, Hong Kong follows a very narrow set of rules for confiscating property or money used in crime, unlike some western countries, such as the United States, which use a broad system that benefits police and puts individual civil liberties at risk.

Simon Young, who also does work for the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong, said he intends to create a focus group with the money from the Research Grants Council to examine ways to reform current codes on asset seizure in criminal cases by using something called "civil forfeiture."

Young said the current seizure law, enacted in the late 1980s and based on what was then British law, is out of step with international practice.

He said that Hong Kong needs to examine whether it can support a system of laws that allow the government to bring charges against property instead of people, in order to seize assets linked to criminal activities so that the government benefits from the seizure.

"But you've got to have safeguards, you have to protect third-party rights," Young said.

To seize assets in Hong Kong, the court that convicts a person must draw up a confiscation order and prove through evidence that these assets were used in, or are the result of, crime.

But technicalities and faulty witnesses can imperil this process, Young said.

He thinks Hong Kong should look at a system used in the United States and in England that allows the government to bring a case against property without having to bother with witnesses.

In such a system, "you don't have to convict anyone," Young said. Authorities only need to show the paper trail.

"Hong Kong still applies rudimentary laws that narrowly target the tools of crime without taking a broader notion of crime-tainted property which includes property that facilitates crime," Young said in his October grant proposal.

But Young cautions: "[Civil forfeiture] laws, however, can have a significant impact on the property and civil rights of individuals who may be innocent of any criminal wrongdoing."

In US federal drug prosecutions it is possible for individuals to lose houses and other property even if they are unaware they are linked to criminal activity.

Police directly benefit from seizing such assets, as they can convert the assets to cash to fund their own operations. "That's one of the reasons that US authorities have come under such harsh criticism," Young said.

He believes it is not appropriate for the Law Reform Commission to conduct research on the issue.

"It is doubtful whether this body is the most appropriate one to carry out this kind of reform project," he said. "Rarely do the members perform their own research or writing as such work is left to secretariat members. The subcommittees have no budget for making or receiving expert visits."

He also recommended the government steer clear of exploring the topic. "Recent experience has shown that without proper public consultation and prior expert advice, the Hong Kong administration has had great difficulties passing laws that potentially impinge on individual rights and freedoms," Young wrote in his proposal.

With the grant, Young can invite scholars and experts from other countries to assist him to produce a report, available to the public, by 2007, the 10th anniversary of the handover.

One lawyer said that Hong Kong's system of forfeiture has so far been fair.

"If you are caught smuggling you can lose your boat or plane, but it requires a specific situation where there is culpability," Kevin Egan said.

"The innocent normally don't suffer in Hong Kong."