This is what I cannot understand. How can you prove that someone was unduly influenced, without at the same time proving that someone influenced. Not like it Jesus rained cash on Donald and channeled a dream telling him what to do. And even if that was the case, shouldn't his branch manager, a local bishop, be held accountable?Only thing that irks me is that David Li doesn’t only walks free, but unchallenged. Not even questioned. Complete disgrace.
And a year later, he has served his time and is released.
Tsang, 74, who was discharged from the custodial ward at Queen Mary Hospital, also regained his perks including bodyguards and chauffeur services.https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...ld-tsang-freedSome have questioned whether Tsang should keep privileges provided to former chief executives if he fails to overturn his conviction.
A spokesman for the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau earlier said: “If any individual former chief executive cannot perform the promotional and protocol-related functions … the government will redeploy the relevant resources for other appropriate usage during the period.”
And... hopefully this closes this chapter of his life.
https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/compone...0-20190626.htmIn handing down sentence, a panel of five top judges agreed that a lower court judge had not given jurors adequate directions before they found him guilty in 2017.
The court of final appeal also ordered that there shall be no retrial for Mr Tsang as it is not in the interest of justice to do so.
Not too sure about this. Something asymmetrical about this conviction to begin with.Original Post Deleted
I've always had the stance that for person A to be convicted of accepting something in return for an advantage, person B needs to be convicted for giving that something.
More reading: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/ju...ES.htm?noembed