Three criminal complaints for ICAC officers justified

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 08 July, 2010, 12:00am
UPDATED : Thursday, 08 July, 2010, 12:00am

Theft, child abuse - and telling a person to use a toilet in a nearby service station instead of one at the ICAC headquarters - were among complaints against graft-busting officers substantiated last year.

They were among three criminal complaints and two non-criminal complaints found justified by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

In the child-abuse case, a couple working in the ICAC's operations department were found guilty in court and each placed on a HK$1,500 good behaviour bond for a year.

They were also given 'appropriate advice' by a senior officer, the agency said in its annual report.

An ICAC spokeswoman yesterday said counselling services and advice were provided to all officers who asked for it.

In another criminal case, an officer was found guilty after trial of theft and sentenced to perform 120 hours of community service.

In the case, widely reported by the media, the officer stole a bottle of red wine by switching bar codes in a Taikoo Shing supermarket in March last year.

The third criminal case referred to a temporary staff member who pleaded guilty to six charges of theft and was sentenced to 100 hours of community service on each charge, to run concurrently.

On three other criminal complaints, two were unsubstantiated and a third was withdrawn.

The ICAC's internal investigation unit, the L Group, also received one complaint alleging corruption and related offences. This was still under investigation at the end of last year.

The L Group processed 31 non-criminal complaints against ICAC officers with two substantiated by the agency's independent complaints committee.

Thirteen complaints were unsubstantiated and 16 remained under investigation at the end of the year.

One of the substantiated complaints concerned three officers. Two of them were found to be negligent in inserting incorrect names of people in a draft authorisation while the third officer was found to have failed to observe internal guidelines in dealing with classified information on the internet.

'The first two received verbal warnings and the third one was given appropriate advice by a senior officer, the report said.

The other substantiated complaint concerned two officers who told a person, who went to the ICAC headquarters to collect seized property, to use a toilet in a nearby service station instead of one in the headquarters.