Chapter 6
Prosecution
Case substantiated Plea of guilty
Following the vigorous efforts made by investigating officers in gathering evidence during the year-long investigation, the cash seized on the spot and the confession of the Club Deputy Manager were all crucial elements in cracking the case. In October 2017, the three offenders were charged by ICAC.
D1 – Superintendent Y
- offence of accepting an advantage as a public servant
- offence of conspiracy for a public servant to accept an advantage
- offence of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office
- contrary to section 4(2)(a) and 12(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, section 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, section 101I(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and Common Law
D2 – Club Manager
- offence of offering an advantage to a public servant
- offence of conspiracy for a public servant to accept an advantage, and offence of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office
- contrary to section 4(1)(a) and 12(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, section 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, section 101I(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and Common Law
D3 – Club Deputy Manager
- offence of offering an advantage to a public servant
- offence of conspiracy for a public servant to accept an advantage, and offence of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office
- offence of aiding and abetting another person to offer an advantage to a public servant
- contrary to section 4(1)(a) and 12(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, section 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, section 89 and 101I(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and Common Law
Charges against the trio were supported by overwhelming evidence. Apart from his failure to declare a conflict of interest in connection with his handling of police files relating to the Club, and to abstain from the deliberation, decision making, and investigation of suspected criminal offences involving the Club, Superintendent Y also accepted bribes for disclosing police confidential information and offering advice and assistance to the other two defendants for the purpose of helping the Club to circumvent police's licence inspections.
Realising that he could no longer beat the rap, Superintendent Y decided to break the silence and make a plea for leniency. The Club Manager as offeror of the bribes also pleaded guilty after learning that there was irrefutable evidence of his crime.
DoJ offered no evidence against a number of charges against Superintendent Y upon his indication of guilty plea. One would think that it was a pity but the investigating officer in charge of the case did not think so. They explained that charges were supported by various evidence and the final prosecution decision was to be made by DoJ. Plea negotiation is common in the legal system of Hong Kong, China. A defendant may reach an agreement with the prosecution through the plea negotiation regime to agree to plead guilty or not to dispute in exchange for the prosecution's consent in offering no evidence to certain charge(s). As a result, court time and public money will be saved.
On a guilty plea, the court has to consider whether the offence admitted can reflect the criminality on his part, whether the seriousness of the crime can be brought out as well as whether it is appropriate to the circumstances of the crime before deciding on the acceptance of the defendant's plea negotiation proposal.
"To ICAC, it is certainly a good thing for Superintendent Y to plead guilty. It can avoid complicated court proceedings and make police officers better understand the reasons behind the ICAC operations."