During the trial, there were more than ten(10) Crown witnesses giving evidence and a one-half truck load of exhibits produced, all coinciding with and supporting what the Petitioner said on oath before Judge Jones.
8. The strength of the above case was such that, at one stage during the trial, defence
counsels asked Judge Jones to adjourn the hearing so that their clients could have time to consider pleading guilty to the charges and for leniency. It was the Crown Counsel prosecuting the above case who told the Petitioner about the incident.
9. The Petitioner gave evidence in the witness box for six(6) days and his evidence was
so convincing that Judge Jones did, in the afternoon of the second day of the trial (2/4/1975) order that bail for the defendants be revoked and that they be remanded in custody. This incident was known to everyone in court.
10. At any stage during the trial, the Petitioner did not say or do anything resulting in
loss of the above case, or the convictions against the swindlers being reversed; he did stick to facts and told the Trial Judge what actually happened.
11. None of the swindlers ever spoke in the witness box, nor did they call any witnesses
in self-defence.
12. Upholding of the swindlers' appeal was not based on elements of doubt in the evidence,
lack of evidence, insufficiency of evidence or other mitigating circumstances. 13. The argument on which the swindlers' appeal was allowed was fallacious, ridiculous
and prejudiced; it was based on a probability or fabrication; it was put forward by a barrister who was formerly a judge and understood to have been closely associated with the judicial officers on the bench.
14. Senior Superintendent J.P. MacMahon is a high-ranking police officer of integrity; he has been with the Royal Hong Kong Police Force for over twenty years and is head of their Triad Society Bureau and General Investigation Office--- a special police unit which has the intelligence and techniques to tackle Tin Sin Kuk swindles; he is noted for his excellent performance in investigating the Happy Valley Horse Doping Case in Hong Kong a few years ago. His long professional experience as a senior detective,
particularly as head of the General Investigation Office, does give him unsurpassed qualification to give evidence on the above case whether as an expert or as a police officer. 15. During the trial, the evidence given by Senior Superintendent J.P. MacMahon was
never opposed by any of the two defence lawyers and his qualification to give evidence on Tin Sin Kuk swindles was accepted by all parties before Judge Jones. 16. In May 1973, four Tin Sin Kuk swindlers were convicted by Judge J.G. Wilson in
Kowloon District Court of similar charges and under similar circumstances (ref. case no. KCC 106/73). During the trial of this case, there was also a police officer giving evidence as expert on Tin Sin Kuk swindles, as Senior Superintendent J.P. MacMahon did with the above case. The criminals convicted in connection with this case are now still in jail.
17. Investigations into the above case was a joint ICAC and police operation having costed
the Hong Kong Government more money than the sum of which the Petitioner was cheated. 18. The appeal was originally heard by a 3-men panel (Mr Hukkinz, Mr Mcmullene & Mr
Trainier), but, when the "verdict" was pronounced, only two (Mr Hukkinz and Mr Mc- Mullene) were present. It is interesting that the chief judicial officer did not preside over the appeal, nor did he contribute to the decision to set aside the convictions against the three swindlers.
19. It took the judicial officers concerned 46 days (from 24-7-1975 to 8-9-1975) to arrive at a "verdict"; the length of time for deliberation was unprecedented. Appeals of this nature are usually decided upon as soon as they are heard. Even in the appeals lodged by big drug trafficker Ng Shek Ho and others which involved a lot more people and very heated and protracted arguments, a decision was pronounced within 3 weeks after they were heard.
20. The circumstances under which the convicted swindlers' appeal was upheld smell of
corruption, malpractices, abuse of judicial powers; they suggest that justice has been miscarried and that a "fixing-up" in favour of Tin Sin Kuk swindlers as a whole was made before a decision was announced, which will have an important bearing on the illegal activities and livelihood on the part of the criminals in question.
21. In Hong Kong, the facts of life have been that there are over 100 organised Tin Sin Kuk
swindle rackets existing and operating at all levels of the society in Hong Kong; each year sees hundreds of victims to swindles of like nature which fetch the criminals in question an estimated HK$30,000,000.00 (thirty millions dollars) every year with certain Chinese C.I.D. police officers, triads and crooked lawyers behind these sinister swindle syndicates.