296 Hong Kong Cases [2008] 1 HKC was not a voluntary act initiated by YHHK, for it was compelled to do so under PRC law, including art 45 of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law (art 45).4 38. Accordingly, the Commissioner concluded that the control which YHHK had over the relevant information was vitiated by the operation of PRC law. In this sense, YHHK had no control over the data disclosure, and YHHK was accordingly not a ‘data user’ as defined under s 2(1) of the Ordinance. D3. The Ordinance had no extra-territorial application 39. Thirdly, the Commissioner was of the view that since the Ordinance did not contain provisions conferring extra-territorial application, applying the territorial principle, the Ordinance did not extend to any act committed by a foreign party on foreign soil (for this purpose, the PRC is considered a different jurisdiction from Hong Kong). 40. The Commissioner was further of the view that the territorial principle was illustrated by s 39(l)(d) of the Ordinance, mentioned above, which the Commissioner interpreted as providing a set of conditions to be fulfilled before he can exercise his powers of investigation. 41. The Commissioner found that none of the conditions contained in s 39(l)(d) was satisfied. There was no evidence to show that the appellant was a Hong Kong resident; or that he was in Hong Kong when the act was committed or had a right accrued in Hong Kong; nor was there evidence to show that his personal data was collected, held, processed or used in Hong Kong; or that the Disclosure Order was issued to YHHK in Hong Kong; or that the disclosure in question was made in Hong Kong. 42. Of particular relevance was the condition contained in s 39(1)(d)(i)(B), which provided that ‘the relevant data user was able to control, in or from Hong Kong, the collection, holding, processing or use of the personal data concerned.’ The Commissioner was of the view that it sufficed to find jurisdiction if any part of the data cycle was at the relevant time controlled by a relevant data user ‘in or from’ Hong Kong. A B C D E F G H 43. However, in line with his conclusion that YHHK had no control over the data disclosure, and that YHHK was not a ‘data user’ in the present context, the Commissioner concluded that condition 39(1)(d)(i)(B) had not been satisfied. I 4. Article 45 provided as follows (unofficial translation): ‘The People’s Court, the People’s Procuratorates and the public security organs shall have the authority to collect or obtain evidence from the units and individuals concerned. The units and individuals concerned shall provide truthful evidence.’