Chapter 7

Trial And Sentence

Superintendent Y and two club operators pleaded guilty during trials.

Superintendent Y admitted that between November 2015 and January 2017, he, being a public servant, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, accepted a bribe of $570,000 in total from the two club operators as a reward for disclosing the confidential information of police investigations against the Club as well as offering advice and assistance, contrary to section 4(2)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and section 159A of the Crimes Ordinance.

The Club Manager pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy for a public servant to accept advantages, contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and section 159A of the Crimes Ordinance. And the Club Deputy Manager admitted to one count of aiding and abetting another person to offer an advantage to a public servant, contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and section 89 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.

DoJ eventually accepted the plea negotiation proposal of Superintendent Y and offered no evidence to a number of less serious charges.

圖片

Court hearing

Once an up-and-coming officer in the police force and an elite in the eyes of the management and a role model to subordinates, Superintendent Y had people from various sectors making mitigation requests for him. The defence lawyer cited in court a number of commendations and letters of mitigation in which Superintendent Y was praised for his leadership. A former Chief Superintendent of Police even commended him as a "hero" in upholding justice in the frontline by fighting triad and undesirable elements. He was once widely recognised for his efforts in the police force, but a mistake put his future to an end. He was remorseful for his corrupt acts, feeling ashamed of himself and guilty towards his parents for having ruined his much-respected career and reputation. The case had dealt a heavy blow to himself and his family and even brought disrepute to the police force. A plea negotiation proposal might be the only possible way to reduce the adverse impact on himself and the people around him and the police force as a whole.

When passing sentence, the judge highlighted the severity of the case spanning over a year and involving substantial amounts of bribes though only minor offences such as selling liquor without a licence and breaches of conditions of stay were involved. He remarked that Superintendent Y, being a senior police officer having access to sensitive information and disclosed information concerning decoy and licence inspection operations on different occasions, had committed serious misconduct for pecuniary benefits and failed to fulfil his duties and public expectation of a law enforcement officer. A sentence of imprisonment was therefore the only option.

The Club Manager, though not the owner of the Club, played a vital role as the only contact with Superintendent Y for police confidential information and engaged in the operations of the Club together with the Club Deputy Manager. Their bribery acts might not only be for the purpose of boosting its business performance but also for their personal gains. The culpability on their part could not be evaded.

The final judgement

DoJ offered no evidence to the remaining charges against the trio and their sentences were reduced by one third by the court on account of their guilty pleas.

D1 – Superintendent Y

  • convicted for conspiracy for a public servant to accept advantages
  • sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment
  • in addition to the restitution of the bribes involved, he also lost his pension of over $5 million

D2 – Club Manager

  • convicted for conspiracy for a public servant to accept advantages
  • sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment

D3 – Club Deputy Manager

  • convicted for aiding and abetting another person to offer an advantage to a public servant
  • sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment