Chapter 5
Arrest Operation
Swift action
The ICAC investigating officers learnt the whole story from PW1 when they received the complaint. After obtaining the details and some of the evidence from PW1, the ICAC decided to mount an arrest operation. The defendant was arrested at his residence, while PW2 was invited to attend an interview at the ICAC immediately after the investigating officers were notified by the Immigration Department of her arrival in Hong Kong.
Multiple evidence
Evidence received from PW1, including screenshots of email and WeChat messages provided by PW2 to the Mainland branch, revealed the defendant’s solicitation of commission. PW2’s Mainland and Hong Kong bank account records were also provided to the ICAC for investigation.
Having the crucial evidence at hand, the investigating officers swiftly conducted an operation to arrest the defendant. One of the investigating officers recalled the situation where they were ready to arrest the defendant outside his home, saying that “there was a clamour in the flat, but as soon as we knocked on the door and identified ourselves as ICAC investigating officers, it suddenly turned into a dead silence and the lights went off. Obviously, the family was trying to pretend that no one was at home. We then waited outside until the defendant and his wife took their children to school the next day. The defendant simply looked stunned when we made the arrest, as if he thought that we had already left.” With the perseverance and hard work of the ICAC officers, the defendant was finally arrested.
Investigating officers pointed out that it is never easy to investigate or uncover cases of corruption due to the satisfied relationship between the consenting parties. Although PW2 was willing to testify against the defendant, the duo had only been making communication through email and WeChat. The defendant flatly denied having sent PW2 messages or emails for soliciting commission even when there was evidence, stating that PW2 might have pressurised the bank for her investment loss through the accusation made against him, or that someone might have impersonated him for soliciting commission by using his stolen email and messaging accounts.
However, the discovery of a notebook had led to a significant breakthrough in the investigation. The investigating officer said, “When we arrested the defendant and searched his residence, we found a notebook with PW2’s email address on it. The judge therefore admitted the email content provided by PW2 as evidence in court. Justice surely has long arms!”
There have been cases involving Hong Kong and Mainland residents in recent years. Take this case as an example, PW2 is a Mainland resident. According to the investigating officers of the case, they were notified by immigration officers when PW2 entered Hong Kong from the Mainland, which enabled them to promptly invite PW2 to assist in the investigation.
To eradicate corruption, the ICAC works closely with law enforcement agencies in Hong Kong, the Mainland, Macao and overseas. Operational Liaison Groups jointly chaired by a senior directorate officer of the disciplined services and the ICAC have been formed with the Hong Kong Police Force, the Correctional Services Department, the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, and the Fire Services Department respectively.
In addition, cooperation between law enforcement agencies in Hong Kong and the Mainland has been strengthened in recent years. The Mutual Case Assistance Scheme, which has been implemented for over two decades, is a good manifestation of the collaboration between the two jurisdictions and aims to provide mutual assistance in locating witnesses or arranging for them to give evidence in Hong Kong or Mainland court. Despite the difference in the legal systems of the two jurisdictions, a number of joint operations were carried out to recover corrupt proceedsand perform public record checks in extraterritorial jurisdictions under the well-developed Scheme.
Screenshots of WeChat messages between the defendant and PW2 were submitted to the court as evidence. Investigating officers remarked that despite the popular use of social messaging applications for communication purpose, the admissibility of such social messaging records as evidence is subject to the decision of the judge.