London24NEWS

‘Chinese spy’ labored as UK Border Force officer to hold out ‘shadow police operations’ for Hong Kong authorities

A UK Border Force officer acted as a spy for China carrying out ‘shadow police operations’ and surveillance on pro-democracy activists in Britain, a court heard today.

Peter Wai, 38, who worked for UK Border Force and volunteered as a special constable for the City of London Police, is accused of acting as if he was running a Chinese ‘state intelligence service’ on British soil.

He was allegedly tasked to gather intelligence for Hong Kong authorities by Chung Biu Yuen, 65, also known as Bill Yuen, a retired Hong Kong superintendent working as a trade official in London.

In an extraordinary espionage case, which is the first of its kind, the pair are accused of behaving like they were in mainland China ‘acting as if they were entitled, in this country, to act as a law enforcement or state intelligence service‘.

The Old Bailey heard how Wai, a former Scotland Yard officer, abused his access to Home Office systems and the UK police national computer system in order to carry out ‘shadow police operations’ including tracking people and breaking into homes.

Prosecutor Duncan Atkinson, KC, said: ‘The defendants engaged in shadow policing operations on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and thereby, the People’s Republic of China.

Peter Wai arriving at the Old Bailey... he is accused of running a Chinese ¿state intelligence service¿ on British soil, while working as a UK Border Force officer

Peter Wai arriving at the Old Bailey… he is accused of running a Chinese ‘state intelligence service’ on British soil, while working as a UK Border Force officer

Wai was allegedly tasked to gather intelligence for Hong Kong authorities by Chung Biu Yuen

Wai was allegedly tasked to gather intelligence for Hong Kong authorities by Chung Biu Yuen

‘By shadow policing operations, I mean the gathering of information about persons of interest to the Hong Kong authorities, undertaking surveillance on such persons and otherwise acting as if they were entitled, in this country, to act as a law enforcement or state intelligence service, when no such entitlement existed.

‘Whether or not they might have been legitimate if undertaken in Hong Kong or in mainland China, the United Kingdom is not their jurisdiction, and it is for UK authorities to enforce the law.

‘Their actions were for the benefit not of UK authorities but for foreign nationals, a foreign police system and the authorities of a foreign state.’

Yuen, an employee of the Hong Kong Economic Trade Office in London allegedly ‘tasked Wai and others to undertake various activities to benefit the interests of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and therefore China’.

Jurors were told that a private security company run by Wai in London was ‘used as the vehicle’ for searches on people.

The court heard how the pair received requests to gather intelligence on ‘abscondees’ after Hong Kong authorities offered £100,000 bounties for information to locate or capture individuals hiding in the UK suspected of links to pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

The defendants, who are both dual Chinese and British nationals, are said to have been part of ‘determined measures’ by the Hong Kong Government and police to ‘reach beyond their jurisdiction’ to target dissidents of the regime.

In one case, the pair allegedly forced their way into a woman’s house after trying to trick their way into the property in Pontefract in West Yorkshire by posing as electricians who had come to repair a fuse and pouring water under the front door to pretend there was a flood.

When UK police intervened arresting Wai at the property, they found a fake warrant card identifying him as a police superintendent.

Both men deny assisting a foreign intelligence service and foreign interference under the National Security Act.

They also deny foreign interference by forcing entry into an address in Pontefract.

Wai denies misconduct in public office by conducting searches of Home Office databases without justification.

The trial continues.