Letters | Why white-collar crime should not be excluded from Hong Kong’s extradition law with mainland China

I was dismayed to learn from media reports the strong objections from the business community to the Security Bureau’s proposals to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance to enable the transfer of fugitive offenders to Taiwan, Macau and mainland China (“Extradition agreement with mainland China would damage Hong Kong’s ‘safe reputation’ for business, AmCham says”, March 6). The objectors include many who are delegates to the National People’s Congress, or members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, and hold important advisory positions in the Hong Kong government. They are supposedly the most trusted and loyal supporters of Beijing and the Hong Kong government.

All of them travel regularly to mainland China. If they are in any danger of being nabbed by mainland law enforcement authorities, that could happen any time they set foot in mainland China, or even in the mainland port area in West Kowloon. So why worry about being transferred to the mainland after the legislative amendments proposed by Security Bureau have taken effect? Surely it would be much easier for Chinese authorities to catch them in mainland China than to try to do so by fighting numerous legal battles in Hong Kong’s courts?

As for the business community’s request to exclude “economic” offences from the schedule of offences covered by the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, I do not see why businessmen should be given differential treatment. Many of the “economic” offences covered by the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, like offences relating to obtaining property or pecuniary advantage by deception or securities and futures trading, or counterfeiting and forgery, are serious ones. The fact that the offenders involved in such crimes might be wealthier is not a justification for letting them off the hook.