421
667
668
398.
Division said how could such a thing happen under the noses of 2 of the most senior officers without their knowing it. According to Lau he hau been involved from 1963 until May 1971 for approximately 7 years in protection rackets- he said he was getting protection money and according to him during that time he had never paid a single senior officer anything and as he remained a police officer himself throughout that period we
can presume he was doing this under the noses of a large number of senior officers without their knowing about it.
Dubmit that evidence given by Lau quite boldly in spite of fact
that sort.
he had So recently served sentence and in spite of fact he had to part with almost all his ill gotten gains to the Crown he scened remarkably confident. I detected no signs of any regret remorse or anything of
he rattled through his evidence almost a though it was a
set piece he learned by heart. He had to be asked to slow down many times and r. bceats had only to ask him very few questions. He went through the most vital parts of his evidence especially at speed and this in spite of the fact that according to him he had only read statement
or statements concerning this matter to ICAC. He admitted that he had
these statements and he read them once and he put them away and did not
know where. They might have been in the Harbour Hotel or somewhere else. They might have been picked up - he did not worry about them. I would suggest that he knew where they were and read them over and over again. He already told us that he was so worried about the 3
dangerous tape recordings that he would not have them in his possession.
He kept them with his solicitors. So much for his demeanour.
certainly did not look like type of man who had just lost almost everything, he was well dressed. Strong probability far from having
lost, he is exceedingly rich to-day. He had successfully protected himself. He is probably pleased with himself, think he has done well not to face any further charges under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance not like his former colleague and contemporary who is
now in this very building charged with having over $6 million in
excess. I say this because of a certain piece of his evidence which
is incredible. On a Friday he gave evidence that he paid his lawyers
in respect of his own proceedings 50,000 for costs and on the following Monday without any prompting he volunteered ne had remembered over the
weekend that it was a $150,000. I tried to ask him in cross-examination
in what caused this sudden improvement/his memory all he would say was he
-
He