1. Power to require materials and assistance

1. Power to require materials and assistance

Under section 66D of the Ordinance, if the PCPD reasonably suspects that, in relation to an investigation of a doxxing-related offence, a person has or may have possession or control of any document, information or thing (collectively, “materials”) relevant to the investigation, or may be able to assist the PCPD in relation to the investigation, the PCPD may issue a written notice to that person, requesting him/her to provide the relevant materials and answer relevant questions to assist the PCPD in conducting such investigation.

The PCPD’s written notice may specify, for example, the type of material required (e.g. mobile phones and computers), time, place, way and form in which the material is to be provided. In the notice, PCPD may also require a person to answer questions in writing or by attending before her at a specified time and place, and/or make a statement in relation to the investigation. 

It is an offence under section 66E(1) if the person fails to comply with a requirement of a written notice. On summary conviction, he/she may be liable to a fine of HK$50,000 and to imprisonment for 6 months. Alternatively, on conviction on indictment, he/she may be liable to a fine of HK$200,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year.

It is also an offence under section 66E(5) if a person, with an intent to defraud:-

• fails to comply with a written notice; or

• provides any material, answer, direction, explanation, particulars or statement, that is/are false or misleading in a material particular, in purported compliance with a written notice.

On summary conviction, he/she may be liable to a fine of HK$100,000 and to imprisonment for 6 months.  Alternatively, on conviction on indictment, he/she may be liable to a fine of HK$1,000,000 and to imprisonment for 2 years.

A person is not excused from complying with a requirement of a written notice only on the ground that it might tend to incriminate him/her. However, under section 66F of the Ordinance, if before giving the answer, directions, explanation, particulars or statement as required under PCPD’s written notice (collectively, “required matter”), that person claims that the required matter might tend to incriminate him/her, then PCPD’s requirement/question and the required matter will not be admissible in evidence against him/her in criminal proceedings other than those in which the person is being charged with an offence under section 66E(5) of the Ordinance or an offence in relation to “perjury” under Part V of the Crimes Ordinance.