Opinion | Justice ill-served by prosecutions in money-laundering schemes

Hong Kong prides itself on its rule of law, but its crim-inal justice system should meet the test that "the punishment fit the crime", whether applied through the police, the public prosecutions branch of the justice department, or judges through sentencing. By those tests, it appears to be deteriorating, much blame for which must surely be laid at the door of the Department of Justice public prosecutors who set the tone.

It is a grotesque injustice that the small cogs in alleged money laundering schemes are now not only being prosecuted, but are given sentences greater than almost any ever imposed on the biggest fraudsters Hong Kong has ever known.

In the past few months, one 22-year-old man of modest background was given 10½ years for money laundering and a 61-year-old public housing tenant received 10 years for a separate but similar offence.

These prosecutions and sentences bring the justice system into contempt. They show that Director of Public Prosecution Kevin Zervos and the judges handing out the sentences live in that comfortable world of elite official lawyers who have little idea of how and why Hong Kong's economy works, or of its relationship to the mainland and Macau.

They are, however, keen to show zeal in prosecuting such alleged offences and thereby claim that Hong Kong is fighting money laundering, without having to go after the real sources of the money allegedly being laundered, or requiring that authorities on the mainland or Macau take steps to identify the crimes. They doubtless recognise that bureaucrats subject to appointment by politicians operate within circumscribed limits and it is easier to go after nobodies in Hong Kong than party members on the mainland.

Nothing seems to have changed here since the Department of Justice opted not to prosecute well-connected publisher Sally Aw Sian for fraud for spurious "public interest" reasons.

Zervos defended government actions on money laundering in this newspaper last Thursday, by arguing that the jury concluded that the defendants had reasonable grounds to believe that the money transferred was the proceeds of a serious criminal offence. But how can anyone come to such a conclusion without being given any indication of the nature of such alleged criminal activity? For sure, a large number of small transfers would indicate a desire to avoid mainland exchange controls. But those are evaded in billions of dollars every week by mainland individuals and corporations.