A systematic comparison of how Mainland China and the Hong Kong SAR approach human trafficking in law and in practice — and what each can learn from the other. To our knowledge, no previous study based in Hong Kong has done this.
Hong Kong has consistently maintained that trafficking in persons is not a prevalent problem within its borders. Joint enforcement operations with Mainland Chinese authorities have simultaneously dismantled major trafficking networks with connections to both jurisdictions. These two positions are difficult to reconcile — and the tension between them has received almost no systematic academic attention.
This research asks a question that Hong Kong's policy discourse has largely avoided: what can Hong Kong learn from how Mainland China approaches human trafficking in law and in practice? The framing is deliberately comparative rather than adversarial. Both jurisdictions have gaps. Both have strengths. The question is not which system is better in the round — it is whether specific, identifiable features of Mainland China's approach could address specific, identifiable deficiencies in Hong Kong's.
What the comparison reveals is that the gaps are not equivalent in kind. Mainland China's limitations are largely ones of implementation — enforcement that is effective but uneven. Hong Kong's limitations are structural: they are embedded in the legislative framework itself. A fragmented multi-ordinance approach, a practice of splitting trafficking chains into separate public-order offences, and the absence of a unified victim identification mechanism are not gaps that can be closed by better enforcement of existing law. They require legislative choices that Hong Kong has so far declined to make — and which Mainland China's unified framework, however imperfect, demonstrates are possible.
The UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (2000) — to which China is a signatory — establishes three elements that must be present for conduct to constitute trafficking in persons. This research uses these three elements as its primary analytical lens, mapping how the legal provisions of each jurisdiction cover — or fail to cover — each element.
The table below maps the principal legal provisions in each jurisdiction against the three Palermo elements. The pattern is consistent: Mainland China's framework, while not without its own limitations, aligns more coherently with international standards than Hong Kong's dispersed ordinances.
The table below maps the principal legal provisions and enforcement practices of each jurisdiction against the Palermo Protocol's three elements. Where relevant, implementation gaps are noted alongside the legal framework. Sources for each row are indicated in the methodology section below.
| Dimension | Mainland China | Hong Kong SAR |
|---|---|---|
| National action plan |
Mandated, coordinated The legal system is supported by top-level design through a national anti-trafficking action plan coordinating resources across all relevant ministries. The most recent plan (2021–2030) was published by the State Council. (gov.cn) |
No mandatory unified strategy HK's 2018 Action Plan to Tackle TIP and Enhance Protection of FDHs is a government policy document, not legislation. Different ordinances are implemented by different policy bureaus. The Prosecution Code (2013) and Prosecution Manual (2017) added human exploitation guidance, but there is no mandatory overarching strategy coordinating all anti-trafficking efforts across departments. (Security Bureau) |
| Core legal basis |
More unified Criminal Law Arts. 240, 241, 244, 358 — a single specialised criminal law framework, supplemented by Supreme People's Court judicial interpretations. Trafficking in women and children is a defined, standalone offence with graduated penalties. |
Fragmented Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200), Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115), Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57), and others. No standalone anti-trafficking offence. Prosecutors must construct cases by combining provisions across multiple ordinances. |
| Gendered and age-based scope |
Significant gap: men excluded Art. 240 — the core trafficking offence — applies only to women and children (under 14). Adult men are not covered by Art. 240 at all. Forced labour of men may be prosecuted under Art. 244, but that provision carries lower penalties (max. 3 years for non-serious cases) and is rarely used in practice. The US TIP Report has repeatedly flagged this exclusion. (Source: Library of Congress; US State Dept TIP Reports 2022–2025.) |
Formally gender-neutral, practically narrow Hong Kong's provisions do not explicitly exclude men, but the principal provisions (Crimes Ordinance ss. 129–131) are focused on sexual exploitation for prostitution and apply mainly in practice to female victims. Forced labour and forced criminality affecting any gender are addressed only indirectly. |
| Act element |
Broadly covered (for women and children) Art. 240 explicitly covers abducting, kidnapping, buying, selling, fetching, sending, or transferring — broad enough to capture the full trafficking chain for women and children. The act element under Art. 244 (for forced labour of all persons) is narrower. |
Partial Crimes Ordinance s.129 covers bringing a person into or out of HK for prostitution. Broader forms of recruitment, transfer, or harbouring without a cross-border element, or for purposes other than prostitution, are not directly addressed. |
| Means element |
Partially covered — with gaps Art. 240 references violence, coercion, and anaesthesia. However, Chinese law does not recognise non-physical coercion (such as deception or abuse of vulnerability) as a standalone means unless linked to physical force or restriction of liberty. Children over 14 in commercial sex situations are not automatically regarded as trafficking victims. (Source: US TIP Report 2024.) |
Largely absent Most Hong Kong provisions addressing potential trafficking conduct omit the means element entirely. Non-violent trafficking through deception or exploitation of vulnerability — the dominant mode in the clinic's casework — falls outside the scope of available charges, making it legally harder to prosecute and practically harder to identify. |
| Purpose element |
Partial — gap with Palermo Art. 240 uses "purpose of selling" rather than "purpose of exploitation" — a narrower formulation than the Palermo Protocol. Situations involving direct exploitation without a sale (forced labour, forced begging, or servitude imposed without transfer) are not clearly covered. Arts. 244 and 358 address forced labour and forced prostitution respectively but require separate charges. (Source: US TIP Reports 2022–2025; UNODC.) |
Narrow Principal provisions (Crimes Ordinance ss. 129–131) focus almost exclusively on sexual exploitation for prostitution. Forced labour, forced criminality, and other exploitation purposes are addressed only indirectly through other ordinances, with no unified definitional framework. |
| Victim identification in practice |
Weak in practice despite formal mechanisms National action plans and inter-agency protocols exist on paper. But the US TIP Report 2025 documents that, in practice, "authorities detained, arrested and penalised unidentified trafficking victims, including... among the Chinese nationals arrested and returned from online scam compounds in Southeast Asia." The MPS has a screening procedure for prostitution-related arrests but was found not to implement it in practice. Thousands of Chinese nationals repatriated from scam centres in 2023–25 were processed primarily as criminal suspects rather than as potential trafficking victims. Experts note "almost zero focus on victims of human trafficking." (Source: US TIP Report 2025; Time, 2025.) |
No statutory mechanism No unified victim identification procedure. Frontline officers operate under non-binding interdepartmental guidelines. Victims are routinely processed as illegal workers, overstayers, or criminal defendants without trafficking assessment. Of 11,300 screenings in 2024, eight individuals were identified as victims — all of whom were Hong Kong residents exploited abroad, not exploitation cases within Hong Kong. |
| High-level enforcement |
Network-level action — effective but uneven Mainland authorities have demonstrated capacity for network-level action — dismantling syndicates, prosecuting senior figures, and conducting cross-border operations. Enforcement has been more effective against networks targeting Chinese nationals than against broader forced labour cases, which continue to be handled primarily as administrative matters rather than criminal trafficking prosecutions. |
Point-of-arrest focus Enforcement typically engages at the point of arrest, processing individuals for the offence immediately apparent. The broader trafficking chain — recruiters, controllers, beneficiaries — is rarely the subject of investigation. In joint operations with Mainland authorities, HK consistently processes the same cases as immigration and vice matters rather than trafficking investigations. |
The 駕雲行動 (Operation Movecloud) series — joint enforcement operations involving Hong Kong, Guangdong provincial authorities, and the Guangdong Coast Guard — provides a detailed illustration of how Hong Kong's handling of joint operations systematically dismantles the human trafficking chain into separate, lesser offences.
Guangdong Province and Hong Kong · Joint operation: Hong Kong Immigration Department, HKPF, Exit and Entry Administration Bureau of the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department, and the Guangdong Coast Guard.
The focus falls on the act of transportation — defined as smuggling of Mainland illegal immigrants. Handling agencies: marine police, immigration department. The women involved are labelled "offenders" (illegal immigrants). The purpose of exploitation is not examined.
After evidence is gathered, Hong Kong police raid four prostitution establishments. Four syndicate leaders are arrested. The same women's status shifts from "illegal entrants" to "offenders engaging in illegal prostitution" — not potential victims. Syndicate leaders are charged with operating a vice establishment and living on the earnings of prostitution.
A complete trafficking chain — involving recruitment, transportation, coercion, and sexual exploitation — is reduced to two separate public-order offences. The link between means and purpose is never investigated. The result is that the same operation that Mainland authorities treat as a human trafficking matter is processed in Hong Kong as an immigration and vice case. Victims are criminalised. The exploitation chain is obscured. And Hong Kong's official position that trafficking is not prevalent is, in part, a product of this classification practice rather than a finding about the underlying reality.
The operations below — each involving Mainland and Hong Kong authorities — demonstrate that when enforcement is coordinated and network-level in its ambition, trafficking chains can be identified and dismantled. The question is why that ambition is not reflected in how Hong Kong classifies and prosecutes the cases that result.
Joint operation by HKPF, ImmD, Guangdong Provincial PSB Exit & Entry Administration Bureau, and Guangdong Coast Guard. 106 persons arrested, including 8 local core members. Smashed a syndicate arranging Mainland women's illegal entry into HK for sexual exploitation. HK processed the case as illegal immigration and vice offences. No trafficking charge was brought.
Source: HKSAR ImmD Annual Report 2021, Chapter 5 (official primary source)
Joint operation by HKPF OCTB, Shenzhen Entry/Exit Border Inspection General Station, and Shenyang Municipal PSB. 42 arrested — 30 in HK (including 24 Mainland nationals), 12 on the Mainland. Syndicate recruited Mainland workers for illegal employment in HK (dishwashing, cleaning, removal) via forged HK identity cards, charging RMB 30,000–50,000 per person. Shenzhen side dismantled a forged HKID manufacturing centre. HK charges: illegal immigration, breach of conditions of stay, possession of forged documents. No trafficking charge brought despite clear forced labour indicators.
Source: 香港商報, 21 August 2025 (hkcd.com/content_app/2025-08/21/content_8710020.html)
Both operations involve all three Palermo elements — act, means, and purpose of exploitation — identified in the joint intelligence. In both cases, Mainland authorities contributed to dismantling the network at source. In both cases, Hong Kong's resulting charges were immigration and public-order offences. The trafficking chain, once it reaches Hong Kong's criminal process, disappears into a different legal category.
Note: Additional operations appear in the student research dataset. Only operations independently verified against official primary sources are presented here.
Four findings from the comparative analysis. Each is grounded in the legal provisions, the case study evidence, and the enforcement record.
Measured against the Palermo Protocol's three elements, Mainland China's Criminal Law covers the act, means, and purpose of trafficking more coherently than Hong Kong's dispersed ordinances. The means element — absent from most of Hong Kong's relevant provisions — is the critical gap. Non-violent trafficking through deception or exploitation of vulnerability cannot be effectively prosecuted under existing Hong Kong law.
When Mainland and Hong Kong authorities handle the same cross-border case, Hong Kong consistently breaks the trafficking chain into separate public-order offences — illegal entry, unlawful employment, operating a vice establishment. The connection between means and purpose is never investigated. This is not occasional oversight; it is a systematic practice with systematic consequences.
Joint operations reveal a consistent asymmetry: Mainland enforcement is designed to dismantle networks, targeting recruiters, controllers, and financiers. Hong Kong enforcement engages at the point of arrest, processing the individual most immediately visible — who is often the victim. The result is that victims are criminalised and perpetrators are undercharged.
Mainland China's framework has serious limitations beyond the "purpose of selling" gap: Art. 240 entirely excludes adult men — a critical omission given that men are disproportionately targeted by scam centre trafficking. Victim identification in practice is weak: thousands of Chinese nationals repatriated from scam compounds in 2023–25 were processed as criminal suspects rather than trafficking victims. And enforcement has been politically selective. Hong Kong's gaps are different: they are structural and legislative — requiring a dedicated Anti-Trafficking Ordinance — rather than failures of implementation of an otherwise sound framework. Neither jurisdiction meets the Palermo standard. The lessons available to Hong Kong are about legislative design, not wholesale adoption of a model that itself requires reform.
These recommendations follow from the research findings. They are specific rather than general, and directed at identifiable actors.
The single most important structural reform. A standalone offence incorporating all three Palermo elements — act, means, and purpose — would end the reliance on patchwork provisions, provide clear guidance to law enforcement, and create the legal basis for a statutory victim identification mechanism. Mainland China's unified framework, however imperfect, demonstrates what coherent legislative design achieves in practice.
The existing interdepartmental guidelines are non-binding and demonstrably insufficient. A statutory mechanism — with clear referral duties for frontline officers across the police, immigration, and labour departments — is essential to ensuring that potential victims are identified before they are processed as offenders.
The operational intelligence generated by cross-border joint operations is currently used by Mainland authorities to pursue network-level prosecutions. Hong Kong processes the same intelligence into immigration and vice charges. The research recommends that joint operational protocols be revised to require trafficking assessments for cases involving all three Palermo elements — regardless of which jurisdiction takes the lead.
The current "purpose of selling" formulation leaves a gap for situations involving direct exploitation without a sale — forced labour, begging, or servitude imposed by a trafficker who does not transfer the victim. Aligning Art. 240 with the Palermo Protocol's broader purpose element would close this gap and strengthen Mainland China's own framework against the full spectrum of trafficking conduct.
This research combines doctrinal legal analysis with case study methodology. The doctrinal analysis maps the relevant legal provisions of Mainland China and Hong Kong against the three elements of the Palermo Protocol, drawing on the primary texts of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, relevant Supreme People's Court judicial interpretations, and Hong Kong's principal ordinances.
The case study analysis draws on official primary sources — HKSAR government press releases, Immigration Department annual reports, and verified news reporting — as the primary evidence base for operational examples. The US State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Reports are cited selectively for specific statistical and implementation data where no primary source is available, and are read alongside other sources rather than treated as definitive assessments. All operational examples presented in this research have been independently verified against at least one official primary source.
Supervision & direction: Patricia Ho, Principal Lecturer & Clinic Director.
Student researchers: Students co-led the doctrinal analysis, comparative framework mapping, case study research, and drafting under supervision.
All findings have been reviewed for accuracy and are presented here in summary form. The full research paper is available on request.