Chapter 5
Devotion Of Stand-by Duty On Chinese New Year's Eve
Waiting for blitz operations
"The entire A Group was standing by in the office round-the-clock, and everyone was feeling the stress and tension." After carrying out thorough investigations, Superintendent Y was found to have secret dealings with the Club Manager and the Club Deputy Manager. However, evidence gathered so far could only prove that Superintendent Y had misconducted himself but that did not necessarily mean he had committed offences of corruption. In order to bring justice to all those concerned, more cogent evidence had to be collected; therefore A Group officers were required to perform stand-by duty in the ICAC office for instant action at any time.
Misconduct in public office is a common law offence, which will be committed where a public servant (a person who is vested with powers, duties, responsibilities or discretions which he is obliged to exercise or discharge for the benefit of the general public; may or may not be employed by the Government, and may or may not be paid), in the course of or in relation to his public office, wilfully misconducts himself (for example, by wilfully neglecting or failing to perform his duty, or abusing his powers); without reasonable excuse or justification. Generally speaking, pecuniary advantages may not be involved in a public servant's misconduct. However, public interests are severely prejudiced as the misconduct itself departs from the responsibilities of the office; or the public servant misuses his official position, fails to disclose conflict of interest, or shows favour to an individual or organisation known to or having dealings with him.
Any public servant who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, solicits or accepts any advantage by virtue of his official capacity as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise on account of his abuse of power (for instance, expediting, delaying, hindering or preventing the performance of an act, whether by himself or by any other public servant in the capacity as a public servant; or assisting or favouring anyone in the transaction of any business), will be guilty of an offence under section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Any person who offers any advantage to a public servant for the aforesaid purposes will also be guilty of an offence.
| Misconduct in public office | Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance | |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of offence | Abusesthe powers or duties to be exercised for the benefit of the general public vested by virtue ofofficial positions andwilfullymisconducts himself | Solicits or accepts any advantagein an official capacity as an inducement to or reward for abusing his power |
| Maximum penalty | Seven years' imprisonmentand a fine | Seven years' imprisonmentand a fine of $500,000 |
According to the officer in-charge, investigation findings showed that Superintendent Y had abused his power by divulging internal police information to the Club Manager and the Club Deputy Manager. The serious impact made on the police enforcement actions was a piece of ample evidence to suggest Superintendent Y committing an offence of misconduct in public office. However, investigating officers learnt from experience that this case probably involved corruption offences.
Though fully aware that SDS was conducting an investigation into the Club, Superintendent Y still accepted advantages offered by the Club for his "recommendations". Such acts were not only misconduct but very likely also involved bribery.
It was not easy to decide on round-the-clock standby because no one could tell when the next operation would take place. The investigating officers kept waiting and waiting. Christmas was over, and the Chinese New Year was around the corner. Suddenly, they received intelligence about the Club Manager's possible meeting up with Superintendent Y. So they immediately prepared themselves to commence operation on New Year's Eve. Superintendent Y and the Club Manager were kept under surveillance by the investigating officers who later discovered that the former ordered his subordinates to conduct inspection in a casual manner at the Club and instructed the Club Manager to use counter-measures. Unfortunately, no evidence of offer and collection of money could be gathered.
However, as there was already evidence of Superintendent Y's abuse of official capacity by giving advice and divulging information to the Club, the chance of arresting Superintendent Y should not be missed. Therefore, after the duo departed, an operation was started to arrest Superintendent Y at the carpark of his residence, while another team of investigating officers followed the Club Manager, arrested the Club Deputy Manager at the Club and gathered evidence at the Police Headquarters.
They immediately prepared themselves to commence operation
The first route
Superintendent Y's residential building
- Person arrested: Superintendent Y
- Envelope containing $114,000 in cash seized from the vehicle
The second route
Residence in Sham Tseng
- Person arrested: the Club Manager
The third route
The Club
- Person arrested: the Club Deputy Manager
- Account books and bank records seized
The fourth route
The Police Headquarters (Hong Kong Island Regional Headquarters)
- Search conducted at Superintendent Y's office
- Operational records and information of SDS relevant to the case seized
Having missed the opportune moment of the bribe handover, the investigating officers decided to employ a psychological warfare strategy for the arrests. He waited until Superintendent Y and the Club Manager departed before taking any action, so that the duo did not have any chance to communicate. At first, Superintendent Y was shocked by the ICAC's "ambush" operation, but he was quick to restore calmness and claimed that he was meeting an informant. The Club Manager also flatly denied committing corruption. The duo chose to remain silent.
When wrestling with Superintendent Y, who was also a law enforcement officer, the investigating officers already expected that he would not admit his wrongdoings easily and was ready to "play it by ear". Fortunately, the Club Deputy Manager confessed that the Club had been paying consultation fees to Superintendent Y and the Club Manager was the one to discuss details with Superintendent Y, while he just played a role as an assistant. The Club Deputy Manager's statement finally unveiled the corrupt collusions between Superintendent Y and the Club Manager.
Apart from the seizure of an envelope containing $114,000 in cash from Superintendent Y's vehicle, books and bank records were also seized from the Club. Relevant records of complaints and licence checks examined with assistance of the Police revealed that the dates of the complaints and licence inspections matched with those of the meetings held between Superintendent Y and the Club Manager, which further supported the investigation findings.
The $114,000 in cash seized from Superintendent Y's vehicle seems a bit unusual because it is neither a large amount nor a round figure. How did they come up with such an amount?
Relevant account books and bank records that the Club showed that the Club had an entertainment expense of $38,000 every month, which is equivalent to one third of $114,000, suggesting that the amount was in fact a quarterly payment of a "consultation fee" to Superintendent Y. Superintendent Y accepted $114,000 in bribes on five occasions in January, May, September, November 2016 and January 2017 respectively. The meetings between Superintendent Y and the Club Manager once every few months were actually for handing over the bribe money.
ICAC-Police collaboration
The Police rendered a range of assistance to ICAC, from the search of Superintendent Y's office to the examination of relevant cases and files handled by Superintendent Y.
The ICAC-Police collaborative efforts had facilitated the verification of the findings unearthed in the early stage of the ICAC investigation, strengthening a case.
Integrity Management of The Police
The Police has been actively promoting an internal integrity management culture in recent years. An Integrated Integrity Management Framework was formulated in 2009 to promote the virtues of integrity and honesty amongst officers, and to monitor their discipline and conduct through "education and culture-building of integrity", "governance and control", "enforcement and deterrence" and "rehabilitation and support".
To strengthen the implementation of integrity management, the Force Committee on Integrity Management, with three Assistant Directors of ICAC as members, was also established to formulate and assess the integrity management strategies. In addition, the Integrity Management Co-ordinating Committee and the Formation Integrity Committees were responsible for co-ordinating the integrity management work and implementing relevant measures in the headquarters and various police districts respectively.
In 2017, the Police set up a "Special Working Group on Integrity Management" to review the integrity management system and study measures for enhancement. An "Integrity Audit Action Group " was established in 2020 to proactively investigate suspected serious misconducts or disciplinary offences or even illegal acts of police officers with a view to timely identifying and rectifying any risk in work procedures, as well as enhancing the supervision and monitoring of police officers’ conduct and behaviour.