Man penalised for disclosing identities of persons under ICAC probe
2013-1-21
A garage operator was today (Monday) sentenced at Eastern Magistracy for having disclosed that two office-bearers of an Incorporated Owners (IO) were under the investigation of the ICAC.
Lam Lap-kei, 55, was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for 30 months. He was also fined $3,000 by Magistrate Symon Wong Yu-wing.
The defendant had earlier pleaded guilty to one count of disclosing identities of persons being investigated of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under Part II of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), contrary to Section 30(1)(b ) of the POBO.
The court heard that the defendant was the operator of a garage adjacent to a residential cum commercial building in Wan Chai.
On May 18, 2012, an ICAC officer interviewed the defendant and took a witness statement regarding a corruption allegation against the chairlady and vice-chairman of the IO of the building.
The defendant was provided with a copy of his statement on the same day, while a second copy was given to him on May 31, 2012 upon his request.
On both occasions, the ICAC officer reminded the defendant of Section 30 of the POBO. The defendant responded that he understood the provision.
Section 30 of the POBO states that it is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, to disclose to others that certain persons are subjects of an ICAC investigation or any details of such investigation.
The court heard that on June 5, 2012, a flat owner of the building discovered a set of documents, including the defendant’s statement made to the ICAC, was placed at the gate of her flat and other units of the building. The matter was then brought to the attention of the IO’s chairlady.
Upon the instruction of the IO’s chairlady, a caretaker retrieved a total of 64 copies of the documents from the units of the building.
After being arrested by ICAC officers, the defendant admitted under caution that he had placed one set of the documents outside each unit of the building to alert the owners to the alleged corrupt dealings of the IO of the building, the court was told.
An ICAC spokesperson stated that the spirit of Section 30 of the POBO was to protect the reputation of an individual under corruption investigation and the confidentiality of ICAC inquiries.
The public should note that disclosure of the identities of the subjects of an investigation or details of such investigation may constitute an offence under this provision. The maximum penalty is one year’s imprisonment and a fine of $20,000.
The prosecution was today represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Prakash Daryanani, assisted by ICAC officer Kits Wong.
Lam Lap-kei, 55, was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for 30 months. He was also fined $3,000 by Magistrate Symon Wong Yu-wing.
The defendant had earlier pleaded guilty to one count of disclosing identities of persons being investigated of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under Part II of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), contrary to Section 30(1)(b ) of the POBO.
The court heard that the defendant was the operator of a garage adjacent to a residential cum commercial building in Wan Chai.
On May 18, 2012, an ICAC officer interviewed the defendant and took a witness statement regarding a corruption allegation against the chairlady and vice-chairman of the IO of the building.
The defendant was provided with a copy of his statement on the same day, while a second copy was given to him on May 31, 2012 upon his request.
On both occasions, the ICAC officer reminded the defendant of Section 30 of the POBO. The defendant responded that he understood the provision.
Section 30 of the POBO states that it is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, to disclose to others that certain persons are subjects of an ICAC investigation or any details of such investigation.
The court heard that on June 5, 2012, a flat owner of the building discovered a set of documents, including the defendant’s statement made to the ICAC, was placed at the gate of her flat and other units of the building. The matter was then brought to the attention of the IO’s chairlady.
Upon the instruction of the IO’s chairlady, a caretaker retrieved a total of 64 copies of the documents from the units of the building.
After being arrested by ICAC officers, the defendant admitted under caution that he had placed one set of the documents outside each unit of the building to alert the owners to the alleged corrupt dealings of the IO of the building, the court was told.
An ICAC spokesperson stated that the spirit of Section 30 of the POBO was to protect the reputation of an individual under corruption investigation and the confidentiality of ICAC inquiries.
The public should note that disclosure of the identities of the subjects of an investigation or details of such investigation may constitute an offence under this provision. The maximum penalty is one year’s imprisonment and a fine of $20,000.
The prosecution was today represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Prakash Daryanani, assisted by ICAC officer Kits Wong.