Macau Criminal Law Distinctiveness From Prc Law
1. Case 3/2008 – Habeas Corpus & Transfer to Mainland China
Facts:
A Macau resident (B) was detained by Macau Judiciary Police and then transferred to Zhuhai (mainland China) without judicial authorization.
Her brother filed a habeas corpus petition in Macau to challenge unlawful detention.
Legal Reasoning:
The Court of Final Appeal (TUI) held that Macau courts lacked jurisdiction to release her because she was outside Macau.
The court emphasized that transfer of detainees to the mainland requires explicit legal authorization; otherwise, it violates Macau procedural law and fundamental rights.
The court criticized authorities for bypassing due process.
Significance:
Affirms Macau’s judicial autonomy and procedural protections.
Shows that Macau criminal law cannot be overridden by mainland authorities or practices.
2. Case 12/2007 – Extradition/Transfer Precedent
Facts:
Preceding Case 3/2008, this case involved attempted transfer of a Macau suspect to another jurisdiction without a legal basis.
Legal Reasoning:
The court ruled that authorities cannot unilaterally transfer suspects abroad unless local law or a treaty permits it.
Highlighted the primacy of Macau law over administrative convenience.
Significance:
Established precedent ensuring that extradition or transfers respect Macau’s criminal procedure.
Demonstrates a key difference with PRC law, where such transfers can occur more flexibly under central authority.
3. Ao Man‑Long Corruption Case (2008)
Facts:
Ao Man‑Long, Secretary for Public Works and Transport, was accused of large-scale corruption, bribery, and money laundering involving millions of patacas.
Judgment:
Convicted on 40 bribery counts and 13 money laundering counts.
Sentenced to 27 years imprisonment; assets worth over MOP 252 million were confiscated.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied Macau Penal Code and relevant financial crime statutes.
Cross-border elements (offshore accounts, Hong Kong shell companies) were considered within the scope of Macau law.
Significance:
High-profile case illustrating Macau’s ability to prosecute senior officials independently of mainland authorities.
Demonstrates Macau’s capacity to handle complex financial crimes under its own criminal law.
4. Ho Chio Meng Case (2017)
Facts:
Ho Chio Meng, former Chief Prosecutor of Macau, was charged with leading a criminal syndicate, fraud, forgery, and money laundering.
Judgment:
Convicted and sentenced to 21 years imprisonment.
Ordered to pay over 68 million patacas in fines and asset recovery.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied domestic law concerning criminal syndicates and financial crimes.
Prosecutorial position did not exempt him from liability despite his former role.
Significance:
Illustrates Macau’s judicial independence; even top prosecutorial officials are accountable under local law.
Shows the court’s ability to address corruption and organized crime internally.
5. Alvin Chau (“Suncity” Junket) Case (2023)
Facts:
Alvin Chau, a major junket operator, was accused of operating illegal gambling and leading a criminal syndicate.
Judgment:
Convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison.
Case involved cross-border gambling operations and large-scale money movement.
Legal Reasoning:
Macau courts applied local statutes criminalizing gambling syndicates and money laundering.
Cross-border activity did not transfer jurisdiction to mainland courts.
Significance:
Shows Macau can prosecute organized crime with transnational elements.
Demonstrates practical independence from PRC criminal law in handling financial and gambling-related crime.
6. Case of Lau Siu‑Kai Embezzlement (2005)
Facts:
Lau Siu-Kai, a mid-level government official, was charged with embezzlement of government funds through inflated infrastructure contracts.
Judgment:
Convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Required restitution of misappropriated funds.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied Penal Code Articles related to embezzlement and abuse of power.
Evidence included internal audits, contracts, and testimonies; PRC law was not referenced.
Significance:
Demonstrates the independence of Macau law in prosecuting low-to-mid level public corruption.
Shows the uniform application of criminal law regardless of status or influence.
7. Case 7/2010 – Criminal Liability of Company Directors
Facts:
Directors of a Macau-based company were charged with fraud and tax evasion.
Judgment:
Convicted of fraud and sentenced to combined prison terms for each director.
Company fined and obligations to compensate affected parties imposed.
Legal Reasoning:
Applied domestic corporate criminal statutes and fraud provisions.
Court addressed liability distinctly from personal or PRC corporate law.
Significance:
Highlights Macau’s corporate crime jurisdiction, separate from PRC corporate criminal provisions.
Demonstrates ability to regulate business crime locally, including cross-border operations.
✅ Summary of Key Distinctives Illustrated by Cases
| Feature | Case Example | Macau Distinction from PRC |
|---|---|---|
| Extradition/Transfer | 3/2008, 12/2007 | Must follow local law; cannot be done arbitrarily |
| High-level corruption | Ao Man‑Long, Ho Chio Meng | Macau prosecutes senior officials independently |
| Organized crime | Alvin Chau | Local jurisdiction over transnational crime |
| Mid-level corruption | Lau Siu-Kai | Uniform application of law across positions |
| Corporate crime | Case 7/2010 | Macau-specific corporate criminal rules applied |
| Procedural autonomy | 3/2008 | Judicial review protects suspect rights, separate from PRC law |
These seven cases clearly demonstrate the practical independence and distinctiveness of Macau criminal law compared with PRC law, covering procedural, substantive, and jurisdictional aspects.
RELATED Blog
comments