The facts and prosecution case 1. The 1st appellant was appointed Chief Secretary of the HKSAR Government on 30 June 2005, and thus also became an Official Member of the Executive Council. The 2nd appellant was a Co-Chairman and Managing Director of Sun Hung Kai Properties Limited (“SHKP”), a major property developer and publicly listed company in Hong Kong. The 3rd appellant was an executive director of SHKP, while the 4th appellant was a close friend of the 1st appellant. 2. In the period between 27 and 30 June 2005, immediately before, and in anticipation of, the 1st appellant taking office as Chief Secretary, payments totalling HK$8.5 million were made into his bank account. The payments were made on the ultimate directions of the 2nd appellant, in a convoluted manner through the 3rd and 4th appellants. 3. While the 1st appellant was Chief Secretary, there were substantial commercial negotiations between SHKP and the HKSAR Government, including the Ma Wan Park Project and the West Kowloon Cultural District Project, in which SHKP had a significant interest. 4. The prosecution case was that the payments of HK$8.5 million were bribes, not in contemplation of any specific act or omission, but in order to secure an improper inclination and that, in return for the payments, the 1st appellant agreed to be or remain favourably disposed, in office as Chief Secretary, to SHKP, its subsidiaries or associated companies and/or the 2nd or 3rd appellants. The conviction and issue on appeal 5. The appellants were convicted, before a jury, of a conspiracy the alleged object of which was for the 1st appellant to engage in misconduct in public office. Their appeals against their convictions were dismissed by the Court of Appeal and they further appealed to the Court of Final Appeal. 6. The appeal involved the question of whether such an agreement is capable of answering the description of an agreement on the part of the 1st appellant to misconduct himself in the course of or in relation to his public office. The appellants contended that no relevant act of misconduct was involved and that what was alleged to constitute the intended misconduct was merely a state of mind. The Court’s consideration of the issue and analysis of the charge against the appellants 7. The Court considered the law on misconduct in public office and bribery in Hong Kong. Ever since the first Hong Kong legislation on bribery in 1898, the essence of an advantage being corrupt was its tendency to obtain improper influence or secure a disloyal inclination. Subsequent legislative development has widened the anti-corruption net without abandoning this concept. 8. A broad range of different acts and omissions can constitute the conduct element of the common law offence of misconduct in public office. There must however be a relationship between the act or omission constituting the misconduct and the public office. The essence of the offence is the abuse of public trust by the officer. The misconduct must be serious, not trivial, having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the officeholder. 9. The appellants were charged with a conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. It was therefore necessary to focus on the character of the conspiratorial agreement alleged by the prosecution. 10. As the Chief Secretary, the 1st appellant was the second most senior officer in the HKSAR Government. Being part of the Executive Council, he played an important role in the development of Government policy. He was privy to highly confidential information, in relation to matters in which SHKP had substantial interests. He was also a Principal Official and was hence subject to Government Regulations relating to conduct and conflicts of interest. 11. The conspiratorial agreement concerned the 1st appellant being paid HK$8.5 million in return for his favourable disposition while in the office of Chief Secretary. This bargain was therefore clearly corrupt. Its purpose was to cause the anticipated Chief Secretary to be inclined to show favour to the other conspirators’ interests. 12. The conspiratorial agreement was made in anticipation of his entering into that public office and was wholly concerned with his anticipated holding of it. Once he had accepted the HK$8.5 million in relation to his holding the office of Chief Secretary, his independence when he assumed office would be hopelessly compromised and he could not properly discharge his duties nor be trusted to do so. This involved a continuing offence that commenced from the time he entered into his public office and infected the entire period he held that office under the influence of the payment made to him. 13. So analysed, the conspiracy alleged was an agreement under which, in return for a substantial payment of money, the 1st appellant would incline himself in a manner inconsistent with his duty as a public officer. This improper inclination was wholly inimical to his duties as Chief Secretary and involved a serious abuse of office and public trust. 14. The abuse of public trust contemplated by the conspirators was clear and, by agreeing to place himself in such a compromised state, the 1st appellant made an agreement which contemplated a continuing act of misconduct whilst he was Chief Secretary. The fact that the payment made to induce that compromised state was made before he assumed his public office did not mean the abuse of trust occurred at the time of the making of the payment. That payment was made to secure an ongoing inclination on the part of the 1st appellant towards SHKP once he assumed the office of Chief Secretary and it was by agreeing to act as Chief Secretary whilst in the “golden fetters” constituted by that payment that he conspired to commit an act of misconduct sufficient to satisfy the conduct element of the offence of misconduct in public office. Disposition 15. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.