Cheung Tze-keung and the cross-border trial behind “Big Spender”

The mainland prosecution and sentences

Cheung Tze-keung, known as “Big Spender,” became notorious for kidnappings involving wealthy Hong Kong families. His case is often told through extraordinary ransom figures and daring encounters. The official record also reveals a consequential dispute about which legal system should try crimes spanning Hong Kong and mainland China.

A Hong Kong Legislative Council research study records that Cheung and his associates were tried in Guangzhou in October 1998.^[1] The proceedings involved kidnapping, explosives and firearms offenses. The sentence was not simply a death penalty imposed for kidnapping alone: the study distinguishes the penalties attached to the different offenses.

The court imposed death for unlawful purchase and sale of explosives, and life terms for kidnapping and firearms smuggling, with the combined sentence resulting in execution.^[1] The appeal court upheld the death sentences in December. Cheung and other defendants were executed that month.^[1]

Competing jurisdictional positions

The case generated concern because Hong Kong and mainland China had different criminal-justice systems and approaches to capital punishment. Legislators debated whether mainland proceedings encroached on Hong Kong's jurisdiction and how cross-border suspects should be handled.^[3] Those objections were part of the public record, not a unanimous legal conclusion.

Hong Kong's government rejected the claim that its jurisdiction had been undermined. In a statement on 9 December 1998, it emphasized offenses and planning said to have occurred on the mainland. The statement also acknowledged the need for arrangements governing the surrender of fugitives and discussed safeguards, including the death penalty.^[2]

The government's defense and legislators' criticism should be read as competing positions. Together they show why the case outgrew the story of a flamboyant criminal. His prosecution forced questions about borders, legal authority and protections for defendants into public debate shortly after Hong Kong's transfer of sovereignty.

Concurrent authority and proposed safeguards

The government’s term was concurrent jurisdiction. Its position was that Hong Kong could investigate alleged crimes there while mainland authorities could prosecute mainland conduct; where a suspect was arrested affected which proceedings went forward first.^[2] This was an argument about overlapping authority, not a claim that the border had ceased to matter.

The statement listed safeguards that would need consideration in a surrender arrangement, including the death penalty, political offences and limits on onward surrender.^[2] Those were proposed negotiating concerns in 1998. They should not be treated as protections already secured for Cheung or as a description of current arrangements. His case illustrates the difference between discussing a safeguard and having an enforceable mechanism in place.