In recent years, the ICAC received telephone enquiries from abroad or the mainland China on whether we had arrested the callers' friends or relatives. Hence, quite a number of syndicated deception cases involving the impersonation of ICAC officers were revealed.

One of the victims was a Chinese residing in Australia, who met her "boyfriend", who claimed that he worked as an Investment Manager of a Chinese bank in Hong Kong, from a dating website. The "boyfriend" then convinced her to join a mainland investment project. She was then told that the project had brought a great return, but she had to first pay the tax before getting the money.

The victim then received an unexpected phone call from a "Hong Kong financial regulator", telling her that as stipulated under the law, the return was temporarily held by the financial regulator. She was then further required to make a guarantee deposit for having been suspected of tax evasion and money laundry.

At the meantime, her "boyfriend" was arrested by the ICAC. She was told to prepare the same amount of guarantee deposit so that he would be discharged by the ICAC. After making the deposit for the second time, the victim could not make contact with her "boyfriend". It was then revealed that she has met some swindlers, when she consulted the ICAC.

This is a typical defrauding tricks. Syndicated swindlers pick their targets from the photographs of the online dating sites. After seizing their features as being single and desperate to look for love and care, they develop a relationship with them and promote to them different 'investment projects' such as those relating to Mark Six speculations, real estate developments etc. Since the victims have trust in the cheating crooks, they are always willing to take out the money.

When the "investment projects" are nearing completion and the swindlers knew their plans would soon be cracked, then they would lie to the victims that they had been detained by law enforcement officers with an intent to further defraud the victims of paying the bail money.

Please remember the ICAC in Hong Kong will not contact friends and relatives of detainees on their behalves. Furthermore, the Commission will not require them to pay bail money by remittance, account transfer or some other means. Arrangements should be made by detainees through lawyers or in person.

Case 1

A tertiary student studying in Hong Kong received a phone call claiming to be a customs officer from Mainland China, accusing him of illegally exporting controlled drugs. The victim was skeptical at first, but he was told immediately that his personal information may have been stolen and was shown a copy of his identification document as proof.

Although aware of his innocence, the possibility of his personal information being stolen could not be ruled out, so he continued to follow the instructions. The call was then transferred to a person claiming to be a "police officer" from the public security bureau, who stated that the victim was under investigation for money laundering and was provided detailed information about the case. The "officer" requested a video call with the victim, and he was dressing in uniform and showed a warrant card bearing his name and photo.

Then the "officer" maintained contact with the victim through various channels, including text messages, phone calls and video calls. The victim was instructed to report daily and was assigned a specific identification code for communication. The "officer" repeatedly emphasized the importance of cooperation or else the victim's family would be affected. Therefore, the victim had no choice but to follow the instructions, including keeping the case confidential.

After maintaining contact for nearly half a month, the "officer" invited the victim to meet near his residence. The victim was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement prohibiting him from disclosing the incident to anyone, including other law enforcement agencies. The victim was also reminded not to disclose any information because it could lead to conviction.

A few days later, the "officer" presented an arrest warrant that appeared to be issued by the "public security bureau". The warrant included numerous clauses and logos of different law enforcement agencies, claiming that the victim would be arrested. Shortly after, they expressed their belief in the victim's innocence and displayed concern in their tone. To prove the victim was innocent, the "officer" presented a remittance form bearing the logo of the ICAC and instructed the victim to transfer funds to a Hong Kong bank account held by a person claiming to be an "ICAC officer" for asset clearance. The victim was also instructed to delete all related communication messages.

"The ICAC is a highly reputable law enforcement agency in Hong Kong, it should be fine to transfer money into an account held by an 'ICAC officer', right?"

"But doesn't this seem a bit illogical? That 'police officer' suspected me of money laundering through a bank account first, but now he wanted me to transfer funds from the same account to an 'ICAC officer' for asset clearance? What's the reasoning behind this?"

Due to lingering doubts, the victim decided to contact the ICAC to reconfirm the arrangement before making the transfer and then revealed that he has met some swindlers.

Case 2

An educational worker received a phone call from someone claiming to be an employee of a Mainland technology company. After verifying personal information with the victim, the caller immediately transferred the call to a person claiming to be a "police officer" from the public security bureau for a video call. The person on the call claimed that the victim's identity had been stolen in Mainland China and was involved in a money laundering case. During the call, the person showed the victim documents with her personal information and a signature.

Two days later, the victim had a video call with a person claiming to be a "prosecutor" responsible for their case, introduced by that aforementioned "police officer". The "prosecutor" stated that the authorities, in collaboration with the ICAC, were jointly investigating the case and presented documents with the victim's signature.

During the call, the "prosecutor" expressed a strong belief in the victim's innocence and offered assistance. They requested the victim to open a new bank account for asset clearance to prove her innocence. The "prosecutor" emphasized that if the victim did not cooperate, an arrest warrant would be issued, and all her assets would be frozen and she would then be detained for 180 days for investigation. The victim was instructed to log into a website claiming to be one of the financial regulators and provide information such as bank account number and password for asset clearance.

Half a month later, the "prosecutor" arranged for the victim to meet with an individual claiming to be an "ICAC officer". During the meeting, the "ICAC officer" presented a warrant card with the words "Independent Commission Against Corruption" and handed a mobile phone to the victim, asking her to make contact only by using that phone with a new SIM card. They demanded that the victim sign a non-disclosure agreement and read out the terms while being recorded, prohibiting her from disclosing the incident to anyone else or other law enforcement agencies, since it could lead to conviction.

Few days later, the victim met with two other individuals claiming to be "ICAC officers" near her residence. The purpose was to return the signed agreement and receive a document printed with the ICAC logo. During the meeting, the "prosecutor" mentioned that the "chief judge" handling the case was extremely angry and demanded an immediate closure on the victim's family-owned company and a cessation of all business activities. They also showed some photos to the victim, including pictures of the soon-to-be-seized company and the entrance to the victim's family-owned company. The "prosecutor" sternly warned that if the victim refused the request of asset clearance, she would be arrested on the spot.

Shortly after, the "prosecutor" expressed sympathy for the victim's situation and stated that they believed in her innocence. They claimed to have appealed to the "chief judge" and stated that instead of a bail of over HKD 13 million that equivalent to the case amount, they now requested the victim to pay only slightly over HKD 8 million as a bail. The "prosecutor" has then contacted the victim several times and reduced the bail amount to approximately HKD 6 million.

Although the amount involved was significant, the perpetrators who skilled in psychological tactics, took advantage on the victim's confusion. On one hand, they emphasized the dire situation of the victim in a money laundering case and the anger of law enforcement agencies. In other hand, they expressed their sympathy, stating that they believed she was innocent and that the situation could be quickly resolved as long as she remitted the bail money for asset clearance.

To make the victim felt at ease, the "prosecutor" provided detailed information about the money laundering case, including photos of the suspects and victims' names. During video calls, the "police officers" dressed in uniforms and proactively presented warrant cards, while the surroundings were also arranged to resemble some law enforcement agencies, giving the impression of credibility. The "police officers" also arranged for the victim to meet three different impersonated "ICAC officers" in person and collected documents printed with the logo of the ICAC. Trusting the ICAC as a credible law enforcement agency, the victim momentarily let her guard down.

The victim was deeply troubled by her involvement in this case. Firstly, she was concerned about involving her family because the "police officers" frequently sent her photos of her residence and her family members' workplaces. She was also anxious on the terms of the non-disclosure agreement. The perpetrators requested her to use the provided mobile phone for communication, which made her worry that the phone was being monitored and wiretapped, causing her to live under constant invisible pressure every day.

At one point, the victim genuinely believed that the "police officers" and "prosecutor" were sincerely trying to help clear her name. However after a period of time, she started to have suspicions about the whole incident. She decided to call the ICAC and only then did she realised this had been a scam.