Report of the Committee on Members' Interests on a complaint against Hon Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yuen (2017/05/10)

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): DeputyPresident, on behalf of the Committee on Members' Interests ("CMI"),I submit the Committee's report to this Council.

In November last year, CMI received acomplaint lodged against Mr Andrew LEUNG. Citing media reports, the complainantaccused Mr LEUNG of failing to register the shares he owned in two UnitedKingdom-registered companies since 2008 and thus breaching the registrationrequirement as laid down in the Rules of Procedure. These two companies areabbreviated to "SHL" and "OGL". 

CMI has held four meetings to investigatethe complaint and has twice invited Mr LEUNG to provide explanation andinformation in writing to facilitate the investigation. During the relevantperiod, that is within the seven years prior to the receipt of the complaint,Mr LEUNG only made registration once regarding his shares in these twocompanies on 19 October last year, the day following the publication of therelevant media report. 

Regarding the first company, SHL, Mr LEUNGsaid that it was only a representative office of his family business and wasset up to provide services for clients in Europe primarily. SHL had only issuedone share and Mr LEUNG held half of the share during the relevant period. 

In view of Mr LEUNG's admission of failureto register his shares in SHL during the relevant period, members of CMI agreeunanimously that Mr LEUNG has breached the registration requirement stipulatedin Rule 83(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Hence, the complaint against him inrespect of SHL is substantiated. However, CMI finds no information showing thatthe breach of registration requirement was a deliberate act, or that the breachinvolved any conflict of interests with his role as a Legislative CouncilMember. With further regard to CMI's past experience in handling similar cases,CMI decides against recommending any sanction on Mr LEUNG for the breach of therelevant requirement. 

As for the other company, OGL, Mr LEUNGsaid that OGL owned the freehold land of a property in London, the UnitedKingdom. And CEC, a company of which he was a remunerated director andshareholder, owned a flat in that property. CEC was hence a shareholder of OGL.In his first letter submitted to CMI, Mr LEUNG admitted that he had ashareholding interest in OGL as CEC had somehow transferred its shares in OGLto him without his knowledge. CMI subsequently downloaded an Annual Return of OGLfrom the official website of the Companies House of the United KingdomGovernment and asked Mr LEUNG to clarify details of that share transfer. 

In his second letter to CMI, Mr LEUNG saidthat he had assumed the information on the Annual Return was accurate and thushad thought the share transfer had taken place. He therefore admitted in thefirst correspondence his holding of OGL shares and the failure to register thatshareholding interest. However, after verifying with a solicitor for CEC, MrLEUNG was certain that the shareholding transfer had never happened. 

Having considered the clarification andsubstantiating documents further provided by Mr LEUNG, CMI accepts hisexplanation and believes that he held no shares in OGL during the relevantperiod. Hence, the complaint against him regarding OGL is unsubstantiated.However, CMI expresses disappointment over Mr LEUNG's failure to thoroughlyverify the relevant facts before submitting his first correspondence and henceprovided inaccurate information to CMI. 

Deputy President, I so submit.