《廉政公署條例》第10條

根據《廉政公署條例》第10條，如廉署人員合理地懷疑某人干犯賄賂、選舉舞弊或勒索的情況，則無需手令拘捕該人士。而“合理懷疑”(reasonable suspicion)據終審法院於Yeung May Wan & Others v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137的解釋，合理懷疑的衡量標準為客觀合理，視乎該案件的事實及程度。由於每案件的性質不同，故法庭在審理有關案件時會視乎案件的事實以作決定。

廉署人員需要於當刻告知被扣留人被捕原因及其有保持緘默的權利，在錄取口供前亦需要警誡被扣留人士有關其權利，被扣留人士亦可先諮詢法律意見及要求律師陪同落口供。在香港特別行政區訴梁偉倫 [2019] HKCFI 1178一案中，上訴人為某區議員的錢助理，被指串謀詐騙民政事務總署的營運開支。由於廉署兩名調查員在口供上不一致，法官認為上訴人在陳述「攤分一些不能出數的職員」時為在未經警誡前所說，故不應採納有關口供。故如在無警誡下作出供詞或無紀錄警誡後的說法，法庭不會支持該口供版本。

被廉署拘留的人士可被帶到警署並根據《警隊條例》(第232章)處理，亦可被帶到廉署辦公室，如高級廉政主任或以上的廉署人員認為有需要進一步調查，該人士可被扣留(第10A條)。《廉政公署（被扣留者的處理）令》(第204A章)列出有關被扣留人士的權利，例如容許被扣留者與法律顧問通訊、為被扣留者在舒適、飲食及基本設施提供合理安排。而在扣留室及廉政公署辦事處的顯眼處需張貼‘致被扣留者的告示’，列出被扣留者所擁有的權利。被捕人士可以以下條件保釋：將一筆合理數額的款項存放於廉署或作出擔保及提供擔保人以保釋外出。保釋人士需要於指定時間到廉署報到或到裁判法院應訊，否則其保釋金會被充公。

《防止賄賂條例》第30條亦禁止任何人向公眾或特定人士披露受廉署調查人士的身分或細節，否則可被判處1年監禁及罰款$20,000，以此保障受調查者的身分。社民連主席吳文遠曾於2016年向公眾披露時任民政事務局常任秘書長馮程淑儀因換樓被廉署調查而遭法院裁定違反《防止賄賂條例》第30條，後原訟法庭亦以吳得悉廉署立案調查，披露資料會妨礙調查為由駁回其上訴。(見香港特別行政區訴吳文遠 [2019] HKCFI 1485)

在被廉署調查時先了解自己的權益然後尋求法律意見為最好的做法。歡迎致電或WhatsApp 69776708 林先生查詢報價及預約。

According to Article 10 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance, if an ICAC officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed bribery, corruption or extortion, no warranty is required. According to the interpretation of the Court of Final Appeal in Yeung May Wan & Others v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137, the standard of “reasonable suspicion” is objective and reasonable, depending on the facts and extent of the case. Since the nature of each case is different, the court will make a decision based on the facts of the case when hearing the case.

ICAC officers have to inform the detainee of the reason for the arrest and the right to remain silent. The detainee must also be notified of his rights of silence, seeking legal advice and asking for lawyers for accompaniment before taking a statement. In 香港特別行政區訴梁偉倫[2019] HKCFI 1178, the appellant was an assistant to a district councillor and was accused of conspiring to defraud the operating expenses of the Home Affairs Department. Since the two investigators of the ICAC differed in their statements, the judge believed that the appellant’s suspicious statement was addressed without any warning from the ICAC investigators, and therefore should not adopt the statement. Therefore, if a statement is made without warning or is made after a warning without a record, the court will not support that statement.

Individuals detained by the ICAC can be taken to the police station and handled in accordance with the Police Force Ordinance (Chapter 232), or they can be taken to the ICAC office. If a senior ICAC officer or above considers that further investigation is necessary, that person can be detained (section 10A). The Independent Commission Against Corruption (Handling of Detainees) Order (Chapter 204A) sets out the rights of detainees, such as allowing them to communicate with legal advisers, and providing reasonable arrangements for their comfort, such as food and basic facilities . In the conspicuous places of the detention room and the ICAC office, a ‘Notice to the Detained’ must be posted to list the rights of the detained. The arrested person can be released on bail under the following conditions: deposit a reasonable amount of money in the ICAC or provide a guarantee. They need to report to the ICAC or appear in the Magistrates' Court at a designated time, otherwise their bail money will be confiscated.

Article 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance also prohibits anyone from disclosing the identity or details of the person under investigation by the ICAC to the public or specific persons. Otherwise, they may be sentenced to 1 year in prison and fined $20,000. This article seeks to protect the identity of the person under investigation. In 2016, the Chairman of the League of Social Democrats, Avery Ng, disclosed to the public that the Permanent Secretary of Home Affairs at that time, Betty Fung, was under ICAC investigation. He was sentenced to 4 months in prison as he violated the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. The Court of First Instance dismissed Avery Ng’s appeal on the grounds that the disclosure of the information would hinder the investigation. (See 香港特別行政區訴吳文遠[2019] HKCFI 1485)

When being investigated by the ICAC, it is best to understand your own rights and then seek legal advice.