the above case, as a solution to the problem created by the irresponsible decision of
and
Financially, I am affected by the unjust decision of
and
in that I was entitled to compensation in the sum of HK$228,000.00 from the convicted swindlers under a court order made by Judge Jones in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 72 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, which was invalidated as a result of the convictions against the criminals having been set aside.
Furthermore, I would request you to write on my behalf to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council or the Colonial Secretariat asking them to consider giving me the victim appropriate compensation for the money which I should have recovered under the aforesaid court order for all or some of the following reasons:-
1. As everyone knows, Tin Sin Kuk swindle rackets in Hong Kong, including the Yuen
Foong Lung racket to which I fell a victim, have been and are under illegal "protection” by some Chinese C.I.D. officers of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force.
2. Some officers of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force had unofficial records of the swindle
to which I was victim even before the conspiracy became known to me.
3. There was a serving detective constable of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force named
involved in the second part of the conspiracy.
4. At one stage, the "anti-corruption" branch of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force passed
on details of my complaints to the protection racketeers, and, as a result, there were a number of mysterious persons calling at my home intermittently on eight(8) occasions. 5. There was a court order as aforesaid which gave me the right to compensation in the
sum di EM6228,000.00 from the 3 convicted swindlers.
6. The evidence of the case for the Crown was very strong and the charges against the
defendants were convincingly proved. The above is understood to be a first-class case,
7. The outcome of the relevant legal proceedings in the above case is quite unnatural and
is attributable to outside factors and influence such as money, gifts etc.
8. The outcome as aforesaid is not attributable to my fault, elements of doubt in the evidence,
lack of evidence or insufficiency of evidence for the Crown prosecution.
9. When I took up the above case with the highest level of the Hong Kong Government in
August 1973, it did not get proper investigation. In fact, investigations did not commence until after the ICAC went into operations.
10. The Hong Kong Government should accept responsibility for the conduct, activities and
decisions on the part of its civil servants including judges and police officers; it should have much regret over handling of the above case by some of its law enforcement agenc- ies and the unnatural outcome of the relevant legal proceedings in the above case. 11. The prevalence of Tin Sin Kuk swindles in Hong Kong is attributable to the indifferent attitude on the part of the Hong Kong Government towards non-violent crimes, imper- fections in the legal system, corruption on the part of some Chinese C.I.D. police officers, members of the judiciary and legal profession.
12. Since June 1974, I had spent about 6-7 weeks, including very many full working days,
in assisting ICAC and police officers in their investigations. The loss of working hours and income to me was considerable; and, on the majority of the occasions where I assisted law enforcement officers at their request, I did not even get an allowance for my travelling expenses, let alone compensation for my loss of working hours.
Please draw the attention of the Honourable Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils to my grievances and forward a copy of this letter to the Attorney General.
Thanking you for your kind attention and assistance,
Yours faithfully
CC.Anglo-Hong Kong Parliamentary Group, House of Commons, London, U.K. Hong Kong & Indian Ocean Dept. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London, U.K.
Pun Ting Chau
Victim & Principal Crown Witness
Enc.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.