Hong Kong police arrest father and brother of wanted activist Anna Kwok
HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong national security police have arrested the father and brother of wanted activist Anna Kwok for allegedly dealing with her finances, local media reported on Friday, in the first use of the city's security law on family members.
Kwok is the executive director of the Washington-based Hong Kong Democracy Council and one of 19 overseas activists wanted by the city's national security police. She is accused of colluding with foreign forces and police have offered a bounty of HK$1 million ($127,656) for her arrest.
The national security police said in a press release on Friday that they had arrested two men aged 35 and 68 on April 30 on suspicion of "attempting to deal with, directly or indirectly, any funds or other financial assets" belonging to Kwok.
Local media cited unnamed sources saying the two men were Kwok's father and brother.
Police said they formally charged the 68-year-old man on Friday morning for attempting to deal with the finances. They specified the two arrestees were involved in changing the details of Kwok's insurance policy and attempting to withdraw its remaining value.
He will appear in the West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts later in the day while the younger man has been released on bail pending further investigation.
A lawyer for Kwok's relatives could not be reached for comment.
Police warned the public that handling an absconder's funds was a serious offence punishable by a maximum of seven years in jail.
The United States has strongly condemned Hong Kong's ongoing harassment of the family members of pro-democracy activists living overseas.
Chinese and Hong Kong authorities say the law has restored the stability necessary for preserving Hong Kong's economic success.
($1 = 7.7550 Hong Kong dollars)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Hands are tied': Trump DOJ loses bid to unseal Epstein grand jury testimony
A federal judge rejected the Justice Department's bid to unseal grand jury testimony tied to Florida-based investigations of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. A federal judge in Florida rejected a bid from President Donald Trump's Justice Department on July 23 to unseal grand jury testimony tied to a two-decades-old investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The Justice Department asked the federal court in the Southern District of Florida to release transcripts from grand jury investigations that took place in West Palm Beach, Florida, in 2005 and 2007. However, Judge Robin L. Rosenberg ruled that she doesn't have the power to order the records' release. She said she is bound by a past ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which governs Florida federal courts and only allows for releasing grand jury records in narrow circumstances. "(T)he Court's hands are tied," Rosenberg wrote in the order. The ruling does not apply to separate requests from the Justice Department for the Manhattan federal court to unseal grand jury testimony for federal criminal cases filed in that court against Epstein and his associate, convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. This is a developing story that will be updated.
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Americans should beware of Gabbard's 'dangerous distraction' with revisionist history of 2016 election
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, like much of official Washington, has recently focused on what she describes as a sordid and far-reaching scandal and cover-up reaching the highest levels. She has described how a cabal of some of the world's most powerful engaged in a shocking criminal conspiracy and then deceived their fellow Americans in an effort to cover their tracks. No, she's not talking about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender whose connections to global elites have gripped much of the country six years after his death. Instead, Gabbard's supposed bombshell centers on, of all things, the 2016 election. Hers is an effort to re-write history, overturning established facts with conspiratorial fiction, while also directing focus away from the current scandal engulfing her administration and, in particular, her boss and political benefactor, President Trump. It's a history that I know well as a CIA officer who was serving in a senior role on President Obama's National Security Council at the time. First, some background. Gabbard took to social media late last week to tout the declassification of more than 100 pages of handpicked material from the latter half of 2016. She described its import in grandiose terms: "Americans will finally learn the truth about how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful people in the Obama Administration to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President [Trump], subverting the will of the American people and undermining our democratic republic." Gabbard contended that senior Obama officials buried and ultimately subverted the Intelligence Community's finding that Russia did not "hack" the election. She then contrasted that assessment with the conclusion of the comprehensive report President Obama requested in December 2016. That document, released in an unclassified form the following month, found that Russia undertook an "influence campaign" to hinder the candidacy of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and aid that of then-candidate Trump. As Gabbard describes it, these alleged analytic discrepancies are reflective of a "treasonous conspiracy" by Obama officials to "subvert the will of the American people." Leaving aside the fact that President Obama immediately congratulated President Trump on his victory and welcomed him to the White House within 72 hours of Election Day, there's only one problem with Gabbard's sweeping claims: they're entirely untrue. They're not substantiated in the documents she released. Gabbard instead relies on a rhetorical sleight of hand to make her case, repeatedly—and presumably intentionally — conflating the terms "hack" and "influence." She is correct that before and after Election Day, the Intelligence Community assessed that Russia did not "hack" the election—that is, Moscow did not change votes or manipulate state voting systems to alter the Obama administration nearly two months before the election issued a joint statement by the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence calling it "extremely difficult" to alter votes due to the decentralized nature of U.S. elections and built-in safeguards. Even Gabbard's own memo makes clear that, when invoking Russia's failure to "hack" the election, she is referencing that Moscow did not change votes, alter voter rolls, or otherwise disrupt the voting process through cyber or physical means. Gabbard's deceit, however, comes into view when she contrasts this judgment with the assessment of Moscow's well-documented influence campaign. By leveraging social media bots, paid ads, and propaganda outlets, Moscow, according to the intelligence community, sought to denigrate Clinton's campaign and bolster Trump's. Gabbard calls this finding "false" and goes on to argue that previous analyses had "stated clearly that Russia 'did not impact' the election through cyber hacks on the election." The willful distortion is obvious: attempts to "influence" voters through information operations and an effort to alter their votes through disruptive or destructive "hacking" are two very different things. Further undermining Gabbard's case is the fact that others with access to the same set of classified information came to the same conclusion as the January 2017 assessment. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan basis formally concluded during Trump's first term that Russian agents undertook a broader effort to "influence the 2016 presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin." Among the Senators behind this report was the current Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Just ahead of the 2020 election, moreover, the Trump administration itself released a statement, apparently since purged from the DNI's website, noting that Russia was seeking to undercut then-candidate Biden's campaign against President Trump, while adding that some "Kremlin-linked actors" were attempting to boost Trump. In early 2021, the Intelligence Community released a formal assessment concluding that President Putin authorized influence operations to denigrate President Biden's candidacy and support President Trump's. The ultimate irony is that Gabbard, who the White House months ago said was working with the Department of Justice to release additional Epstein files, is fabricating a scandal to divert attention from the real one swirling around her administration. It would be a cheap ploy if undertaken by just about any other U.S. official. Gabbard, however, is no ordinary functionary; she's charged with safeguarding our national security and most sensitive information. As our adversaries, whether rogue states, terrorist groups, or cyber criminals, seek to do us harm, America's most senior intelligence official is busying herself by fabricating partisan attacks against those the President deems his domestic political enemies. And therein lies another scandal.
Wall Street Journal
28 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files
When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a 'truckload' of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Donald Trump's name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials. In May, Bondi and her deputy informed the president at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files, the officials said. Many other high-profile figures were also named, Trump was told. Being mentioned in the records isn't a sign of wrongdoing.
