湯顯明避過刑事檢控 廉署應追究違規責任

<轉載自2016年1月28日 明報 社評>

前任廉政專員湯顯明任內在酬酢、餽贈、外訪等一些不當違規行為，律政司調查約兩年半之後，決定不對他提出刑事檢控，此事在檢控層面告一段落。不過，律政司表明不檢控決定是基於沒有充分證據，不應該被理解為律政司認同湯顯明的行為；事實上，關於此事的幾份調查報告，都認定湯顯明在當時廉署一些人協助下違規。廉署要找出違紀違規的職員，施以恰當懲處，讓市民確信廉署絕不姑息害群之馬，願意清理隊伍重新出發，重建市民對廉署肅貪倡廉的信心和信任。

無充分證據入罪 律政司決定不檢控

律政司就湯顯明涉及的情况，考慮過多項可能相關控罪，包括「公職人員行為失當」、「串謀詐騙」、「索取或接受利益」、「向代理人提供利益」、「欺詐」和「經宣誓後作出虛假陳述」等。另外，律政司委託海外御用大律師提供獨立法律意見，最後因為刑事案門檻甚高，需要毫無疑點的證據，而湯顯明的一些行為雖然未符合公衆期望，不過，若要找到充分證據使他入罪，確實有難度。

例如湯顯明多次宴請內地有地位的政協委員，投訴認為他此舉有「延後利益」嫌疑，只是有關指控純屬推論，無法有充分證據證明宴請是出於賄賂的目的。至於酬酢超支，表面上湯顯明有繞過規定之嫌，不過，他作為專員有酌情權批准人均上限酬酢超支；至於分單，律政司指出無證據證明湯顯明獲告知把分開購買的酒水費用合計，便會超出開支上限，因而無法證明他觸犯了公職人員行為失當等罪行。諸如此類，基於湯顯明的身分、當時廉署的規則規例未夠周延等，律政司結合獨立法律意見，認為若提出刑事檢控，並無合理機會可達至湯顯明被定罪的結果，因此決定不對他提控。

湯顯明是否被刑事檢控，事態十分敏感，會引起包括有沒有政治因素考慮等猜測。律政司約5頁半紙的詳細交代，梳理出湯顯明的行為可能涉及什麼罪行，而律政司和獨立法律意見的考慮都鋪陳出來，清晰顯示不檢控的脈絡和決定，完全符合邏輯。因此，有理由相信律政司的決定是嚴格按《檢控守則》辦事，讓證據說話，若證據不可接納和不可靠，無法做出合理推論，即是證據不充分，因而決定不檢控。檢控權是本港法治重要一環，從律政司的處理，顯示檢控權恪守獨立運作，未受其他力量影響。律政司對曾蔭權案和湯顯明案的處理，使市民對本港獨立辦案，秉持中立，不受干擾，仍然可以有信心。

湯顯明不被追究刑事責任，不等於他的一些行為完全無問題。律政司的聲明特別指出，「今次律政司基於沒有充分證據的考慮不作出檢控，不應被理解為律政司認同湯顯明的行為或其中任何部分」。律政司長袁國強在交代情况時，特別指出不認同的是指管治和紀律兩方面。事實上，審計報告揭發湯顯明領導下的廉署，在酬酢、餽贈、外訪等違規之後，先後有3份調查此事的報告，包括特首委任的獨立檢討委員會報告、立法會帳目委員會報告和立法會專責委員會報告，對湯顯明涉及的不當情事，批評力度雖有不同，但是都認定他的一些行為和做法有違規不當。事態對廉署內部規則規例的背離和踐踏，廉署必須追究，向社會人士昭示廉署對腐敗行為的零容忍。

有人協助湯違規 廉署應一併追究

另外，帳委會和獨立委會的報告都指出，湯顯明並非單獨行事，而是有其他人協助，使酬酢超支分單、餽贈和外訪安排等，都有人執行他的意志。還有是事態揭露之時，廉署公開交代，包括答覆立法會議員的查詢，有關餽贈禮物分類和價值總數曾經一改再改，顯示有人意圖隱瞞或誤導，淡化事態。這種行為，廉署絕對不應該容忍，要徹底全面調查，對違反規定、行為不當的人，無論是現職或已經離職，都要給予懲罰。

現任廉政專員白韞六表示會對違規不當做法，進行內部調查，若確定有人要負責，會施以紀律處分；不過，他透露根據一貫做法，內部紀律處分不會公開。當年白韞六接任未幾，即爆出這件事，起初他的處理相信基於信任下屬，不知道發布了一些失實情况，一度陷於被動，其後他主導處理，事態才返回常軌。白韞六就此事的切身經歷，應該感受良多，他應該把感受化為積極動力，徹底把潛伏在廉署的貪腐因子揪出來，要他們付出代價。基於社會對此事的關切，白韞六在日後內部處分有結果之時，應該考慮適當披露信息，讓市民知道廉署正式割離貪腐，回復為一支市民可信賴的肅貪倡廉隊伍。

On the DOJ's decision

AROUND two and a half years ago, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an investigation into former ICAC Commissioner Timothy Tong's irregularities, which, conducted when he was in office, included entertainment and gift-giving expenses and the numerous visits he made. The DOJ has decided not to bring criminal charges against Tong.

In handling Tong's case, the DOJ considered pursuing a number of charges against Tong, including "misconduct in public office", "conspiracy to defraud", "soliciting or accepting an advantage", "offering an advantage to an agent", "fraud" and "the making of false statements on oath". It commissioned an overseas Queen's Counsel to provide independent legal opinion on the matter. The department also took into consideration the high threshold for a criminal case, which would require irrefutable evidence. It eventually took the view that, though what Tong had done might fall short of public expectations, it was difficult to gather enough evidence to secure a conviction against him.

Take, for example, Tong's hosting of meals with high-ranking CPPCC members from the mainland. Complaints were made that these meals were related to a "deferred benefit". However, such allegations are only an inference in nature, and there is not enough evidence that the meals were hosted with the intention of bribery. As for the overspending of entertainment expenses, Tong does seem to have tried to circumvent the related regulations. But on the other hand, Tong, as ICAC Commissioner, did have the discretionary power to authorise expenditure above the limits per head. As for the splitting of bills, is there any evidence that Tong was told that if the bills were not split, they would exceed the limits? The DOJ does not think so. In its view, it is impossible to prove that Tong has committed misconduct in public office. These points, among others, have to do with Tong's position and the not-so-perfect regulations within the ICAC back then. The DOJ, having sought independent legal opinion, believes that there is no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction against Tong for any criminal offence. It has therefore decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against him.

It is a matter of great sensitivity whether Tong will face criminal prosecution. For it will give rise to speculation as to whether political considerations have played a part. The detailed, five and a half page long explanation offered by the DOJ clearly delineates the offences that might have been committed by Tong, the opinion of the DOJ, and the independent legal opinion. It shows clearly that the thinking behind the DOJ's decision of not prosecuting Tong is entirely logical. We have reason to believe that the DOJ has made the decision strictly adhering to its Prosecution Code with a view to letting evidence speak for itself. In other words, it has decided not to prosecute Tong because the evidence is unreliable and inadequate, making it impossible to make reasonable inferences.

Simon Peh, the incumbent ICAC Commissioner, has said that an internal investigation will be conducted into those inappropriate actions that are against the regulations. Disciplinary action will be taken against those who are responsible for those actions, added Peh. But he also said that, in accordance with usual practice, the disciplinary action will not be made public. We are convinced that, given society's concern about the matter, Peh should consider publishing information in an appropriate way so as to let the public know that the ICAC has distanced itself from corruption.

湯顯明避過刑事檢控 廉署應追究違規責任

前任廉政專員湯顯明任內在酬酢、餽贈、外訪等一些不當違規行為，律政司調查約兩年半之後，決定不對他提出刑事檢控。

律政司就湯顯明涉及的情况，考慮過多項可能相關控罪，包括「公職人員行為失當」、「串謀詐騙」、「索取或接受利益」、「向代理人提供利益」、「欺詐」和「經宣誓後作出虛假陳述」等。另外，律政司委託海外御用大律師提供獨立法律意見，最後因為刑事案門檻甚高，需要毫無疑點的證據，而湯顯明的一些行為雖然未符合公衆期望，不過，若要找到充分證據使他入罪，確實有難度。

例如湯顯明多次宴請內地有地位的政協委員，投訴認為他此舉有「延後利益」嫌疑，只是有關指控純屬推論，無法有充分證據證明宴請是出於賄賂的目的。至於酬酢超支，表面上湯顯明有繞過規定之嫌，不過，他作為專員有酌情權批准人均上限酬酢超支；至於分單，律政司指出無證據證明湯顯明獲告知把分開購買的酒水費用合計，便會超出開支上限，因而無法證明他觸犯了公職人員行為失當等罪行。諸如此類，基於湯顯明的身分、當時廉署的規則規例未夠周延等，律政司結合獨立法律意見，認為若提出刑事檢控，並無合理機會可達至湯顯明被定罪的結果，因此決定不對他提控。

湯顯明是否被刑事檢控，事態十分敏感，會引起包括有沒有政治因素考慮等猜測。律政司約5頁半紙的詳細交代，梳理出湯顯明的行為可能涉及什麼罪行，而律政司和獨立法律意見的考慮都鋪陳出來，清晰顯示不檢控的脈絡和決定，完全符合邏輯。因此，有理由相信律政司的決定是嚴格按《檢控守則》辦事，讓證據說話，若證據不可靠，無法做出合理推論，即是證據不充分，因而決定不檢控。

現任廉政專員白韞六表示會對違規不當做法，進行內部調查，若確定有人要負責，會施以紀律處分；不過，他透露根據一貫做法，內部紀律處分不會公開。基於社會對此事的關切，白韞六在日後內部處分有結果之時，應該考慮適當披露信息，讓市民知道廉署正式割離貪腐。