Police Station Sergeant gets three years for soliciting and accepting advantages from subordinate
2014-1-27
A Police Station Sergeant, charged by the ICAC, was today (Monday) sentenced to three years’ imprisonment at the District Court for soliciting and accepting advantages, including a loan from one of his subordinates, and making and using false instruments in relation to a mortgage loan application for a real property.
Tang Wai-ming, 48, was earlier found guilty of a total of five charges –'96 two of public servant soliciting an advantage, contrary to Section 4(2)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), one of public servant accepting an advantage, contrary to Section 4(2)(a) of the POBO, one of forgery and one of using a false instr ument.
In sentencing, Judge Sham Siu-man reprimanded the defendant for breaching the law and failing to set a good example for his subordinates.
The judge also said it was the choice of the defendant not to abide by law, but he should not cause his subordinate who might have a bright future to break the law as well. Such circumstance aggravated the offences he had committed.
The defendant was also ordered to pay $50,000 in restitution to the government.
The court heard that at the material time, the defendant was a Police Station Sergeant attached to Patrol Sub-unit 2 of Tai Po Division. Around April 2011, the defendant became one of the supervisors of a Police Constable (PC).
In July 2011, the PC failed to attend court as a witness in a theft case. The defendant asked the PC’s appraising supervisor, also a Police Station Sergeant, to give the PC a chance and no disciplinary action was instituted against the PC.
Afterwards in early August 2011, the defendant impressed on the PC that he had made great efforts in saving the PC from punishment, and solicited a loan of $80,000 from the latter.
Fearing that the defendant might ask the appraising supervisor to reconsider taking disciplinary action against him, the PC reluctantly applied for a loan of $50,000 from the Hong Kong Police Credit Union. On August 19, 2011, the PC deposited the whole s um of loan in cash to the defendant’s bank account.
The court heard that about a year later on August 17, 2012, the defendant asked if he could use the PC’s name to apply for a mortgage loan for purchasing a real property after telling the PC that “his matter” should have no problem.
Being afraid that the defendant might make use of his mistake against him, the PC provided the defendant with his signature sample, a copy of his Hong Kong Identity Card and other supporting documents, so that the defendant could use the PC’s name to apply for the mortgage loan.
On the same day, the defendant signed a provisional sale and purchase agreement (PSPA) with a vendor for purchasing a real property in Tai Po at $3 million.
Three days later, the purchaser’s name on the PSPA was changed to that of the PC upon the defendant’s request, and the defendant countersigned on the amended PSPA.
The defendant also used the PSPA and other false instruments purportedly signed by the PC to induce a bank to accept them as genuine, resulting in the approval of a mortgage loan of $2.1 million to the PC, the court was told.
The case arose from a corruption complaint referred by the Police. In the course of the ICAC investigation, the Police had rendered full assistance.
The prosecution was today represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Jones Tsui, assisted by ICAC officer Keith Chu.
Tang Wai-ming, 48, was earlier found guilty of a total of five charges –'96 two of public servant soliciting an advantage, contrary to Section 4(2)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), one of public servant accepting an advantage, contrary to Section 4(2)(a) of the POBO, one of forgery and one of using a false instr ument.
In sentencing, Judge Sham Siu-man reprimanded the defendant for breaching the law and failing to set a good example for his subordinates.
The judge also said it was the choice of the defendant not to abide by law, but he should not cause his subordinate who might have a bright future to break the law as well. Such circumstance aggravated the offences he had committed.
The defendant was also ordered to pay $50,000 in restitution to the government.
The court heard that at the material time, the defendant was a Police Station Sergeant attached to Patrol Sub-unit 2 of Tai Po Division. Around April 2011, the defendant became one of the supervisors of a Police Constable (PC).
In July 2011, the PC failed to attend court as a witness in a theft case. The defendant asked the PC’s appraising supervisor, also a Police Station Sergeant, to give the PC a chance and no disciplinary action was instituted against the PC.
Afterwards in early August 2011, the defendant impressed on the PC that he had made great efforts in saving the PC from punishment, and solicited a loan of $80,000 from the latter.
Fearing that the defendant might ask the appraising supervisor to reconsider taking disciplinary action against him, the PC reluctantly applied for a loan of $50,000 from the Hong Kong Police Credit Union. On August 19, 2011, the PC deposited the whole s um of loan in cash to the defendant’s bank account.
The court heard that about a year later on August 17, 2012, the defendant asked if he could use the PC’s name to apply for a mortgage loan for purchasing a real property after telling the PC that “his matter” should have no problem.
Being afraid that the defendant might make use of his mistake against him, the PC provided the defendant with his signature sample, a copy of his Hong Kong Identity Card and other supporting documents, so that the defendant could use the PC’s name to apply for the mortgage loan.
On the same day, the defendant signed a provisional sale and purchase agreement (PSPA) with a vendor for purchasing a real property in Tai Po at $3 million.
Three days later, the purchaser’s name on the PSPA was changed to that of the PC upon the defendant’s request, and the defendant countersigned on the amended PSPA.
The defendant also used the PSPA and other false instruments purportedly signed by the PC to induce a bank to accept them as genuine, resulting in the approval of a mortgage loan of $2.1 million to the PC, the court was told.
The case arose from a corruption complaint referred by the Police. In the course of the ICAC investigation, the Police had rendered full assistance.
The prosecution was today represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Jones Tsui, assisted by ICAC officer Keith Chu.