There can be no stronger argument as to why 'Big Spender' Cheung Tze-keung should be tried in Hong Kong instead of Guangzhou than yesterday's ruling freeing the assets of 15 of his relatives.
The court's decision that these should never have been frozen, because there was insufficient evidence of crimes committed by Cheung, shows the local judicial system at its best: reaching decisions based purely on the facts involved, even in this most high-profile and controversial of cases.
That is in stark contrast to the proceedings in Guangzhou, which have aroused the concern of international human rights groups. Cheung's Hong Kong lawyer has not even been allowed access to his client and no attempt has been made to investigate allegations that confessions were extracted from some defendants under duress.
After several weeks' silence, the Government finally seems to have recognised the damage done to confidence in the local legal process by its earlier reticence to address the issue of why it has made no effort to have Cheung tried in Hong Kong.
The administration now claims to be examining if enough evidence can be found to put before a local court. The presence of a Hong Kong police officer at the trial has even been re-interpreted as part of an effort to facilitate this.
Such belated official assertions should be taken with a pinch of salt. But at least the Government now recognises that this is an issue which needs to be seriously addressed.