Having examined all the evidence, ICAC investigators concluded that the Chief Property Manager’s family relationship with the directors of HighSecu clearly explained why he had always favoured this security company.
Although there was no evidence he had accepted advantages to help HighSecu get pre-qualified and obtain management contracts worth over $100 million, favouritism was obvious and had seriously damaged the fairness of the government tendering system.
On this basis, the Department of Justice ultimately decided to institute prosecution against the Chief Property Manager under the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office.
On 29 June 2000, the Chief Property Manager appeared at the Eastern Law Courts on four charges of misconduct in public office.
Pleading not guilty, the Chief Property Manager contended that he had not committed corruption as no advantage from any third party was accepted, and that he failed to declare a conflict of interest as required by civil service regulations because he did not know the HighSecu director was his relative.
Public officers are expected to serve the public with integrity, honesty and impartiality. It could be regarded as a form of corrupt conduct if a public officer engages in misuse of office and malpractices in the exercise of his/her official duties to benefit relatives and friends even if there is no direct acceptance of advantage.
The Chief Property Manager’s family relationship with HighSecu’s managing director cum major shareholder was the hard truth. Yet, he argued that he failed to declare to his supervisor the potential conflict of interest arising from his relationship with this company and abstain from the screening process because he did not know the boss of HighSecu was his brother’s brother-in-law.
Was it true that the Chief Property Manager did not know the director of HighSecu was his brother’s brother-in-law? This was rebuked by a small piece of information found due to the perseverance of the ICAC investigator.
According to a travel record of the Immigration Department, the Chief Property Manager and HighSecu’s boss, whom he claimed no acquaintance with, departed at Hunghom via the same immigration counter at the same time on the same day, on 20 September 1993 at 2:31pm and they returned to Hong Kong separately on the following night. It was therefore implausible that the Chief Property Manager did not know the director of HighSecu being his brother’s brother-in-law when handling HighSecu’s pre-qualification submission and those few GPA contracts in 1994!