American lawyer Samuel Bickett’s recent “report” for the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation (CFHK) is a calculated attempt to tarnish Hong Kong’s reputation, aligning with a broader agenda to discredit the city. The accusations made by Bickett in the report are malicious but unsurprising. He has been badmouthing Hong Kong ever since he was deported from the city after serving time in prison for assaulting a police officer during the “black-clad” riots in 2019. Unfortunately, US business magazine Forbes published an article based on his hatchet job.
The “report” promotes a misleading narrative, making baseless allegations about Hong Kong’s involvement in illicit financial activities and sanctions evasion. The claim that Hong Kong has lost its status as the world’s freest market economy and has become “a hub for rogue regimes to conduct illicit financial transactions and evade international sanctions” is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
It lacks substantial and credible evidence, reflecting a biased perspective that serves to advance anti-China sentiment, which happens to be the raison d'etre of CFHK, whose website declares that it was set up to “fight for Hong Kong and its people”.
The allegations that Hong Kong facilitates the transfer of restricted technology and funding to US-sanctioned countries such as Russia, Iran and North Korea, and the assertion that Hong Kong has increased trade with these nations and is contributing to Russia’s war effort, are particularly egregious. Claims such as the alleged $750 million in shipments of “banned goods” to Russia rely on dubious interpretations of trade data. The reliance of the CFHK “report” on information from the Center for Advanced Defense Studies (C4ADS), a Washington DC-based think tank and other open sources lacks the rigor and credibility necessary for such serious accusations.
Indeed, C4ADS has published a series of “reports” on China, including on topics involving the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region, that showed Beijing in bad light. The CFHK report’s selective use of corporate records to depict “illicit activities” prioritizes sensationalism over objective analysis; its reliance on selective data and anecdotal evidence fails to provide a credible basis for such serious accusations. Allegations that Hong Kong companies engage in ship-to-ship transfers to provide dual-use technologies to Russia, and establish shell companies to evade sanctions are gross misrepresentations, ignoring the stringent legal and regulatory frameworks that Hong Kong consistently upholds.
The assertion that Hong Kong has emerged as a global center for “illicit” finance and trade lacks substantiation from concrete evidence and overlooks the complexities of international trade. Hong Kong’s regulatory environment remains robust, with stringent measures to prevent illegal activities and ensure compliance with international laws. Financial institutions and corporate service firms in Hong Kong operate under strict regulations aligned with global standards, making depictions of these entities as enablers of sanctions evasion both inaccurate and damaging to their reputations. The city’s legal and regulatory frameworks are designed to prevent such activities, consistently demonstrating its commitment to upholding these standards.
Claims that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region's government policy deliberately facilitates sanctions evasion are gross misrepresentations. Chief Executive John Lee’s statements on sanctions enforcement must be viewed in the context of preserving the city’s economic autonomy and stability.
Claims that Hong Kong’s regulatory environment allows for easy concealment of corporate ownership and facilitates rapid company creation and dissolution overlook the comprehensive legal framework designed to prevent such abuses. Hong Kong has implemented significant measures to enhance corporate transparency and combat money laundering and other financial crimes. Furthermore, the CFHK “report's” characterization of Hong Kong’s enforcement of international sanctions as “slow” and “inconsistent” misrepresents the city’s diligent efforts to maintain its status as a premier global financial center. These efforts deserve respect and recognition for the city’s commitment to upholding international standards and ensuring a fair and transparent business environment.
It is essential to consider the broader geopolitical context surrounding the release of this “report”. The United States and its allies have long sought to influence Hong Kong’s affairs, often under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights. This report serves as a tool to undermine Hong Kong’s economic autonomy and strategic position in the global economy. Bickett’s call for the US, European Union and their allies to target Hong Kong banks and other entities represents an attempt to escalate tensions and justify unwarranted interventions. The suggestion that the US should employ financial measures, such as designating Primary Money Laundering Concerns (PMLCs) under Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act, constitutes an overreach that would have far-reaching and unjust consequences for innocent businesses and financial institutions.
It is crucial to recognize the underlying bias in Bickett’s report, as it reflects a predisposition against Hong Kong. His background and prior confrontations with law enforcement raise questions about the objectivity of his findings. The allegations in his report are baseless and align with a broader geopolitical agenda aimed at discrediting the city and China as a whole. Bickett’s allegations against Hong Kong require scrutiny due to their inherent bias and lack of substantial evidence.
As a known critic of Hong Kong’s legal system, Bickett has a vested interest in portraying the city negatively, and his assertion that Hong Kong has modified its financial framework to support countries considered unfriendly to the US, like Russia, Iran and North Korea, is speculative at best and lacks corroborative evidence from credible sources. The city’s legal and financial systems remain strong and resilient, and any claims to the contrary are politically motivated.
The author is a solicitor, a Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
