Chapter 5
Arrest operation
Arrest operation at the examination centre
The ICAC decided to mount an operation on 5 April 2017, i.e. the day of the Chinese Language Writing Examination, Paper 2.
Necessary planning and arrangements were made by the ICAC ahead of the arrest operation to be mounted at the examination centre, including first and foremost communication with the HKEAA. The HKEAA explicitly stated that the ICAC should not make any arrest in the centre lest the operation would disrupt the examination and affect the candidates emotionally. As the leaker’s identity was still unknown, the ICAC decided to conduct surveillance at the school on the examination day to collect more evidence and take action in due course.
The ICAC was aware of the HKEAA’s concerns about the operation. To ensure that the candidates would not be disturbed, the investigating officers approached the school headmaster and got clued up about the detailed arrangement of the examination. On the examination day on 5 April 2017, with full cooperation of the school, the ICAC set observation posts along the corridor and near the classrooms from where the exit of the examination hall could be seen.
After distribution of the question papers, D4 was seen leaving the examination hall for the washroom. At the same time, the investigating officers followed D4 and found her using a mobile phone inside the washroom. The officers believed that D4 might have used her mobile phone to transmit the examination questions to the Star Tutor’s mobile phone on the day of the examination.
When the examination was over, D4 was arrested on the spot by the ICAC officers. She stayed immensely calm when submitting to arrest without resistance. The investigating officers requested to check her phone, but no message was found to have been delivered. It was believed that the messages concerned had been deleted. Later, computer forensic specialists found from D1’s mobile phone, that D4 had sent the examination questions to D1 at the time she entered the washroom, the proof was discovered on D1’s mobile phone.
On the same day, D1, D2 and D3 were also arrested and others were invited to assist in the ICAC investigation. Again, when D2 and D3 were arrested, they remained very calm.

After the 2016 HKDSE examination, the investigating officers spent a whole year looking into the case, yet no further clues were found. “At that time, we wondered if D1 had found out about our investigation. Had he been warned off actually?”
It was not until the HKDSE examination in the following year that some new clues emerged. “In 2017, we noticed that D1’s wife (D4) had applied to the HKEAA for the appointment of Invigilator.” The investigating officers believed that D4 was going to leak the questions to D1 during the examination. At that point, they decided to mount an arrest operation.
The ICAC officers intended to arrest D4 during the examination, to which the HKEAA objected. “The HKEAA was concerned that the operation might disturb the candidates in the examination hall,” explained the investigating officer. “Over 50,000 candidates took the paper that year. The HKEAA’s main concern was that if our arrest operation affected the candidates’ performance, all of them would have to retake the examination.”
Considering the possible impacts of the arrest on the candidates and since video recording system was installed in the examination hall, it was believed that D4 was not going to send the message out immediately. The ICAC officers decided to wait near the examination hall.
Under section 17 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), Cap. 201 and section 10B of the ICAC Ordinance, Cap. 204, an ICAC officer is normally required to apply to the court for a search warrant before conducting a search. The warrant clearly states that the ICAC officer is authorised to enter the specified premises to search for evidence relevant to the case.
If an investigating officer cannot apply to the court for a search warrant in special circumstances, the Commissioner of the ICAC may sign a search warrant during emergency situations.
Unlike other crimes, corruption always entails a satisfied relationship between two parties and thus it is extremely difficult to unearth. The ICAC officers are thus empowered to arrest a person they reasonably suspect of having committed an offence involving corruption or bribery. When the ICAC officers suspect that someone may have committed a corruption or related offence, they do not need a warrant to arrest the person involved. This power is similar to that of other disciplinary forces.
The ICAC may detain a suspect for up to 48 hours after arrest. During this period, the ICAC may refer the case to the Department of Justice which will decide whether or not to prosecute. If further inquiries are required, the ICAC may arrange for the suspect to be released on bail.