Abuse of Hong Kong anti-graft body’s complaints procedures must be deterred

Last month, ICAC commissioner Simon Peh Yun-lu told lawmakers that people who made complaints to his agency must not publicise them, saying it was possible that some people “filed complaints out of malice”.

Corruption involves stigma, and even false allegations can seriously damage the innocent. Since the ICAC is obliged to check out cases reported to it, its processes are wide open to abuse.

READ MORE: Hong Kong’s ICAC chief warns politicians against publicising corruption complaints

In 2013, for example, the media was tipped off that executive councillor Franklin Lam Fan-keung had been reported to the ICAC for allegedly benefiting from insider information over property dealings. Although the allegation was baseless, Lam nonetheless stepped down from the Executive Council and the political fallout, as intended, was significant. This, unfortunately, was only the tip of the iceberg.

Peh revealed that although the ICAC received 2,000 complaints last year, only 200 people involving 100 cases were ever prosecuted. Most cases were unpursuable, either because of insufficient evidence or inaccurate information. If people lodge baseless allegations or leak complaints, they must expect to face consequences.

Under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, it is an offence, punishable with a year’s imprisonment and a fine of HK$20,000, to make false reports, or, until such time as a search or arrest warrant has been issued or there has been an arrest, to make unauthorised disclosure that someone is being investigated by the ICAC.

If, therefore, corruption reports are baseless or are unlawfully revealed, offenders must be prosecuted. Of course, the ICAC does not want to deter legitimate complaints, but it must not be afraid to come down hard on those who abuse the system. Prosecutions, however, are rare, and, for example, between 1987 and 2007, there were only eight prosecutions involving the unauthorised disclosure of an ICAC investigation.