ICAC Landmark Case - Senior Government Counsel Bribery Case

The Twisted Mind of the Legal Falcon

Ti-Liang Yang’s Puzzle

“I was told he was one of the most promising counsels in the then Legal Department. I think he deserved that reputation. He was a very able lawyer, and was certainly regarded one of the brightest in the Legal Department at that time. He could have been promoted to a higher rank. I couldn’t understand why a man in his position would do a thing like that,’’ lamented the former Chief Justice Ti-Liang Yang, who handed down the punishment.

Described as a very articulate professional with a brilliant mind, the former government counsel enjoyed a meteoric rise to the top echelon of the Legal Department after joining the government in 1975. His bosses and colleagues spoke highly of his abilities, particularly his grasp of legal knowledge of commercial crimes and his ability to express himself clearly and quickly. It was no surprise that he was promoted to Principal Crown Counsel taking control of the Commercial Crime Unit and acting as Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in just eight years’ time. His duties involved advising on the prosecutions of major commercial frauds. When he was arrested by the ICAC, many people did not believe he could have breached the law.

The former government counsel toed the line during the first 10 years of his service with the government. It was not until 1986 that he received his first bribe. A high flier in his early 40’s, and risen to the third most senior position in the Legal Department with a stable income and a promising career, what would have made him accept bribes? Mr Yang found it hard to understand why the former government counsel had chosen to ruin his career in this manner.

Yang’s recording
(in Cantonese only)

I did not know him socially. I only knew him through his appearance in court in front of me. He was a very able lawyer. His submission was always clear and strong, and supported by evidence. He was a good cross-examiner. When he cross-examiner the accused or the witnesses on behalf of the accused, he was very effective. He was certainly regarded one of the brightest in the Legal Department at that time. The question remains even now: why would a man in his position do a thing like that? I still can’t understand.

Why the Legal Falcon Crossed the Line

Rising to the Balt

“Maybe he was too vain and ambitious. Besides the money needed to support his family in Hong Kong, the former government counsel had invested all his money in a fruit orchard in New Zealand. To make his orchard the best in his homeland, he even borrowed money from banks at a high interest rate, dreaming that the orchard would bring him a nice profit. The orchard business plummeted sharply during May and June 1986. Facing a serious financial problem, he accepted his first bribe.” ICAC Chief Investigator, James Bell, analysed the story behind the former government counsel’s downfall.

The former government counsel bought the fruit orchard in 1981, but it made no significant profit and the running costs and mortgage loans were heavy. According to Mr Bell, the solicitor and barrister involved in the case, who were also close associates of the former government counsel, took advantage of his situation and proposed the first corrupt deal to him, promising the government counsel lucrative rewards if he agreed to drop prosecutions.

Road to Ruin

ICAC investigations revealed that before the former government counsel was suspended from duty, he met the convicted barrister regularly at a bar. The barrister was the middleman in the corrupt dealings. On one occasion, when the three defendants were handling a commercial fraud case and representing the prosecution and the defence, they were seen meeting in a private room at a restaurant in Causeway Bay for more than three hours. On a number of similar occasions, the former government counsel was seen to have passed documents to the barrister and solicitor.

After the former government counsel had accepted his first bribe of nearly HK$1 million, Mr Bell said he had pushed himself onto the road to ruin. At first, he just wanted to repay his debts, but later he was hooked by greed for more money.

Bell’s recording

I knew that what he had done was because he was in debt. He was a very vain guy that he would not admit that he had debt problem. He should have just sold the orchard. He still had a good future in Hong Kong. He was a bright guy. But he would not let go. He thought he could overcome the debt, but he could not. He then took the first one, the bad guys had got him.

The Investigators’ Epilogue

Justice Not for Sale

“In order to hide his corrupt dealings, the former government counsel once arranged to receive his bribe in Singapore. The bribe was paid in a hotel foyer, the former government counsel had half a banknote, the person who gave him the money had the matching half. You could see he was very careful about what he did and would never let you hunt down any evidence to incriminate him,” Mr Bell said.

“He knew exactly how to avoid being detected. No one could get the full picture of what was going on in a case nor could they have a full grasp of the whole investigation. That was why people could not judge whether the legal advice given by him was correct or not,” Mr Bell added.

It was a gargantuan task for the ICAC’s task force to unearth the corrupt dealings. The task force found no evidence in the office and house of the former government counsel after arresting him. To hide his ill-gotten gains, the government counsel made use of bank accounts opened under the names of relatives to transfer his bribe money overseas. Bearing in mind his senior position in the government and his income, it seemed unlikely he would want to take bribes. That was why people tended to believe that he had done nothing wrong, noted Mr Bell. Hence forth, his uncooperative attitude, request for a judicial review to get back his passport from the ICAC, etc. - would all seem reasonable before ICAC investigation came into a turn.

In the face of barriers, difficulties and legal challenges, Mr Bell said the best approach was a dogged pursuit of as much evidence as possible to prove the former government counsel guilty as charged. He was irritated that people could attempt to buy justice.

Bell’s recording

Seeing the amount of money involved and the fact that defendants could buy justice – that was the annoying thing. High-profile business guys and high-profile people in the Legal Department were corrupt.

No Stone Left Unturned

Another task force member, Chief investigator Eric Leung said: “After he turned into a tainted witness, the former government counsel told us how he fled Hong Kong, but he could not recall the exact time and the point of departure. To piece together the true picture in order to prosecute another solicitor who assisted his escape, we assigned a colleague to analyse thousands of phone calls made by the solicitor and other suspects. Within one month, we identified a 30-second phone call made to Aberdeen, which we thought was the place where the former government counsel boarded a fishing boat for Macau. From that phone call, we identified the fishing boat and then reconstructed the route of the escape.’’

One of Mr Leung’s main tasks was to identify witnesses and find ways to verify the evidence given by the former government counsel. The ICAC task force initially failed to find sufficient evidence to prosecute the solicitor, but Mr Leung and his team persevered in a subsequent search of the solicitor’s office. They found a desk calendar marked with the date and time of the escape, and payment slips of hotels and nightclubs visited by the former government counsel and the solicitor around the time the government counsel fled.

Mr Leung said: “The evidence given by the tainted witness was critically challenged in the court. The defendants, in an attempt to find faults in our evidence, even engaged a retired senior police officer to the hearing to pick on the way we carried out the investigation. The defence spared no chance to challenge us, including points of the legal argument, our ways of carrying out the investigation, procedural matters and the evidence given by witnesses. It was a really hard time. But we realized we had to ensure that every piece of evidence we produced could stand up to the ‘test’ of court hearings. If not, we would have ended up losing the battle.”

Leung’s recording
(in Cantonese only)

They posed us challenges with their professional knowledge, but I think it was good for us in the long run. For instance, we improved the content of our search warrant after they challenged that it was too wide. Since then, no one has posed a challenge to our search warrants. We did feel bad about that at the beginning because they were so unreasonable and kept picking on things to attack us on. But after that, we reviewed the whole case with our legal advisors and then made a number of improvements. We have since become more cautions, not only in conducting investigations but also with procedures. Simply one wrong step could ruin all our effort in a case even though we have sufficient and reliable evidence.