CONFIDENTIAL
The MA Case
ANNEXURE LAL
17),
Information that MA Sik-yu was engaged in narcotics trafficking was known to the Narcotics Bureau from as early as 1960, and whilst active background enquiries into MA Sik-yu started in the late 60s, it was in 1975 that an intensive, active enquiry began. This final active stage of enquiry came about as a result of a principal witness becoming available to the Narcotics Bureau investigators and this witness has proved to be the 'corner stone' of the case.
2.
Towards the end of the active investigation into MA Sik-yu at the time when there was enough evidence to arrest he and his co- conspirators but at a time when the Narcotics Bureau were endeavouring to strengthen their case, MA Sik-yu left Hong Kong and by a circuitous route travelled to Tai Wan. This was in February 1977 and MA has not returned to Hong Kong since that date of departure. The reason why MA Sik-yu left Hong Kong and failed to return is not known, but Narcotics Bureau discount the theory that he was tipped-off by a leak from the Narcotics Bureau, and point to the fact that none of the other important defendants had any knowledge of this investigation prior to the Narcotics Bureau arrests.
3*
It was on the 25th August 1977 in a series of raids that all of the targets in this conspiracy were arrested with the exception of MA Sik-chun (MA Sik-yu's younger brother and publisher of the Oriental Daily News) who was not immediately located at any of his known addresses. Following intense publicity into MA Sik-chun's 'wanted' status MA Sik-chun surrendered two days later on the 27th August 1977.
4.
All of the defendants were refused bail by the remanding magistrate, and this refusal of bail was endorsed by a Supreme Court Judge in a further bail application on the 26th September 1977.
5.
On the 7th November 1977 the committal proceedings commenced and on the 20th December all defendants were committed to stand trial in the High Court. Against the strongest objection of the Crown in which all of the possible grounds for objection were raised, each of the defendants with the exception of one already serving a jail sentence were granted bail. MA Sik-chun was granted bail, one of the conditions of which was that he should report to the police three times per week whilst the other defendants reported to police twice weekly.
6•
Whilst it is impossible to mount effective surveillance on surveillance conscious targets over a prolonged period sporadic surveillance was mounted on MA Sik-chun as of January 1978 as and when surveillance teams were available.
7.
On the 10th July 1978, three other defendants failed to report to police in accordance to their bail conditions and these three missing persons were circulated both regionally and internationally through Interpol as wanted persons who would be extradited to stand trial where possible. At the same time 24-hour surveillance was mounted against MA Sik-chun for several days followed again by a sporadic surveillance depending on team availability. Legal advice was sought as to whether or not the bail conditions of the remaining defendants could be varied or revoked and the advice upon this suggested action was that it could not be done.
CONFIDENTIAL
18.
In ...