The trial of the city’s former top prosecutor, Ho Chio Meng, resumed yesterday for a 12th session at the Court of Final Appeal. Several witnesses have already been called into court to provide their testimonies, and more people were present in yesterday’s session, including two current employees at the MP’s financial department as well as Ho’s former driver.
Yesterday, the first witness who was questioned was Leong Lai Ha, head of the MP’s finance department. During the time when Ho was in the prosecutor’s office, Leong handled payment procedures concerning the MP office including reviewing receipts which were presented by MP employees.
The prosecution side opened by revealing several procurement proposal drafts as well as receipts for flight tickets and hotels booked through certain public relation companies.
According to Leong, the MP normally goes through a public tender process in order to select a company to book work trips for the MP.
Leong responded that when she needed to ordain the payment, she would normally receive proposal drafts and receipts from public relations companies. She then ensured that Ho’s signatures were on some of these receipts.
Assistant Prosecutor General Chan Tsz King asked the witness whether these expenses could have been covered by the MP. In reply, Leong noted that she had been required to act in accordance with the directions of her boss.
Leong further admitted she knew about the existence of the “Teacher’s Resting Room’ on the 16th floor of the Hotline Center. She added that she went there for training, but she claimed to not be aware that the entire floor belonged to the MP.
During her entire testimony, Leong repeated that when she came across a problematic receipt, she would report it to her superior, and act according to their instructions.
Similar questions were directed to a second witness. Similarly, he said that he had never received instructions from anyone telling him not to visit the 16th floor.
The court had a recess for two hours as usual between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. Upon resuming, Ho’s former driver, surnamed Mak, was presented in court to provide his testimony.
According to Mak, Ho occasionally visited an accommodation villa in Cheoc Van, in addition to the previously mentioned “Teachers’ Resting Room.” Mak additionally noted that he would drive Ho’s guests to the Cheoc Van villa. These guests included provincial prosecutors from Guangdong province and former Liaison Office officials.
These individuals included Wong Kuok Wai, Ho Chio Meng’s older brother, and Mak Im Tai, the partner of Wong Kuok Wai in several of the companies which performed tasks privately for both the MP and Ho.
Mak admitted that he helped certain key people to rent out their car parking spaces, adding that the payment process was not completed by the property owners themselves but in fact by the driver himself. Mak said that he performed these actions at the request of Ho.
The prosecutors pointed out that Mak used his name more than 30 times to make hotel reservations in Macau, in addition to other bookings made in Zhuhai and Guangzhou.
In reply, Mak said that he normally forwarded the keys to Ho or to his secretary, and noted that he never stayed in any of these hotels.
The prosecution side also brought out a phonebook. The names on it were unable to be identified because only surnames were listed.
The prosecutors asked Mak whether he remembered or knew who the individuals were, and whether he had driven any of the women listed in the phonebook to the hotels that he had booked for Ho. Mak said he did not remember.
Cash transfers from Ho to mainland China were also revealed during yesterday’s session.
Mak said that starting somewhere between 2005 and 2006 he began taking cash, that belonged to Ho, to mainland China. Mak had been asked to take the money to the mainland and deposit it in Ho’s mainland bank account on about a monthly basis.
According to Mak, the amount of money was initially somewhere around MOP20,000. Later, more money in the vicinity of MOP200,000 and MOP300,000, was given to him to transfer.
The prosecutors then presented a phone call record which was obtained by the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) while monitoring Ho.
The recording indicates that Ho advised Mak what to say to the CCAC on the day following the call in question. Although no specific details regarding the case were mentioned in the conversation, Ho can be heard telling Mak to say, when asked by the investigation authority, that he does not remember or does not know.
However, Mak, in response to the question denied that he was the person on the phone, adding that the phone number which called Ho was not his.
At that point, the presiding judge, Sam Hou Fai, reminded Mak that the court can forward the record to the judiciary police to test whether it was Mak’s voice, and said that if the police confirms it was, Mak could be prosecuted for providing a false testimony.
The court then played the recording once more, and Mak said that he could not recognize whether or not it was his voice. Sam reminded Mak again about the consequences of a false testimony, upon which the record was played a third time. This time, Mak admitted that it was him talking on the phone.
During the remainder of yesterday’s session, Mak was asked questions by Sam and Ho’s lawyer regarding the previously mentioned phonebook. However, the conversation became unclear as Sam, Leong and Mak talked simultaneously.
Ho, at that moment, turned to Sam, saying, “you must let him [Mak] talk slowly, […] you can’t do this.”
The other judges asked Mak for clarification. Before the trial finished, Ho informed the judges of his biggest problem.
The biggest trouble Ho is facing is that the “current Liaison Office’s employees are unable to provide testimonies, and the addresses of those who left Macau and returned to the mainland cannot be found.”
No Comments