In addition to the three principal witnesses, the ICAC in parallel had interviewed a great number of people, including at least four ‘bribe collectors’. Additional and corroborating evidence assembled reinforced the suspicion that a huge number of law enforcement officers were involved in the corruption scam. Several months of intensive investigation had enabled the ICAC to compile a master list of members of the alleged corruption syndicate. Investigators were bracing for an arrest operation that could send shock waves throughout the community.
The target list comprised mainly police officers, many of whom worked in the same police district, creating a challenge of its own. To minimise possible impact on daily police operations, the ICAC had to alert senior police management the need to make contingency deployment should the arrests create a policing ‘vacuum’ at the district level.
In the small hours of 19 September 1979, more than 100 investigators from the Operations Department assembled at the ICAC headquarters for operation briefings. The investigators were separated into 50 or so “action units” of two or three persons each for simultaneous raids on two sets of target locations. Tony Lui and Louis Cheung were tasked to coordinate the operation from the command centre.
Louis Cheung recalled: “According to our intelligence, some of the targets were on duty at that time. One group of action units headed straight to respective police stations to make their arrests. At the same time, another group thronged a targeted block of police quarters where several dozen suspects resided.”
According to action unit colleagues, Tony Lui recalled, “ICAC investigators were on almost every floor at the police quarters. With perfect timing, they knocked on different doors, entered the premises to search for evidence and made arrests. The whole block was aroused in the commotion.
Another arrest operation took place the following day. Altogether both operations netted more than a hundred arrests. By October, the ICAC had locked on 262 serving or former civil servants on its radar for alleged involvement in the case.
All names and nicknames given to the defendants and suspects in the story are fictitious. The restaurant and corner store referred to in the story were closed long ago.
| Arrested | 119 persons |
| Interviewed | 84 persons |
| Missing | 3 persons |
| Passed away | 1 person |
| Pardoned on the ‘partial amnesty’ | 55 persons |
| Total | 262 persons |
The Yau Ma Tei Fruit Market Case was the largest corruption case handled by the three-year-old ICAC to date. The unprecedented challenge strained every muscle of investigators and pushed them to the limit as they tackled oceans of work arising from the scam. Public sentiment was stirred as the case developed. Citizens were eagerly concerned on how the ICAC could prevail over the far-reaching corruption case. And the case also sent shock waves through the law enforcement circles, in particular police officers who had been on the take.
Some police officers opted to vent their resentment at the ICAC. Shortly after the arrest operations, several police officers prepared a petition letter listing their complaints against the ICAC to the then Police Commissioner, Brian Slevin. The petition was signed by more than 11,000 of the force’s 17,000 officers. On October 28, more than 2,000 policemen marched to the Police Headquarters to hand the petition to the Police Commissioner’s office.
Elsewhere, a group of about 40 police officers made for the ICAC Operations Department Headquarters in Hutchison House. "I was on my way back to the office after work,'' Louis Cheung recalled. "When I saw a group of people swarming towards the direction of the Hutchison House, I immediately smelled trouble and dashed back to my office. Colleagues guarding the door hurriedly pulled me then shut the door tightly behind us. We then blocked all entrances and exits with heavy furniture like document racks and desks. We also deposited all relevant case files in the file cabinets, secured them with steel bars and locks to ensure the security of the documents." The brief confrontation resulted in some damages. Ultimately, the police came to our assistance and cleared the scene.
The government clearly had a crisis on its hands. Emergency meetings as the highest level raged in the following days to seek ways to thwart the threat to law and order. Finally, on 15 November, the then Governor Sir Murray MacLehose announced a “partial amnesty”. The effects were immediate. The Operations Department terminated 83 investigations of corruption involving either individual public servants or corruption syndicates. Fifty-five people involved in the Fruit Market case were off the hook. However, the news also sparked off a wave of mails and phone calls from members of the public to the ICAC, voicing their staunch support to the Commission to continue the fight against corruption.
The Governor’s directive stated essentially that in future the ICAC would not normally act on complaints or evidence relating to offences committed before 1 January 1977. The exception would be those where suspects had already been interviewed (and allegations of offences put to them), persons against whom arrest warrants had been issued and persons outside Hong Kong on 5 November 1977, the date on which the partial amnesty was announced.
The phrase “not normally act” was used to exclude from the amnesty offences considered so heinous that it would be unthinkable not to take action. But the Governor stressed that such cases would be rare and it was stipulated that he should be personally consulted first.
The Governor’s directive stated essentially that in future the ICAC would not normally act on complaints or evidence relating to offences committed before 1 January 1977. The exception would be those where suspects had already been interviewed (and allegations of offences put to them), persons against whom arrest warrants had been issued and persons outside Hong Kong on 5 November 1977, the date on which the partial amnesty was announced.
The phrase “not normally act” was used to exclude from the amnesty offences considered so heinous that it would be unthinkable not to take action. But the Governor stressed that such cases would be rare and it was stipulated that he should be personally consulted first.