Ho Chio Meng
Another session in the trial of the region’s former top prosecutor, Ho Chio Meng, took place yesterday at Macau’s Court of Final Appeal, following an adjournment since last Monday. Yesterday’s session concluded at 11 a.m., earlier than previous sessions, with only one witness called to court to testify.
The witness, Lo Sio Lan, is currently a technician at the Office of the Prosecutor General. Lo, commonly addressed as Stella, was Ho’s former secretary, and also used to assist former Chief of Office of the Prosecutor General, Antonio Lai.
Assistant prosecutor Kuok Un Man raised many questions regarding the northern Europe trip at issue in Ho’s case. Lo said that she recalled some details about the trip only when raised by the prosecution. Lo attested that she did not book flight tickets or reserve hotels for departments other than the one she worked for.
She further said that Ho requested that she contact a public relations company and travel agencies for flights to and accommodation in northern Europe. During the process, Lo made no proposals regarding the tickets and hotels.
During previous trial sessions, Lo explained that Lai asked her to sign the flight ticket receipt.
Lo is related to one of the defendants in the case, Mak Im Tai.
The presiding judge, Sam Hou Fai, informed Lo that she was lawfully entitled to refuse to answer questions concerning the shelf companies and the allegedly problematic outsourcing of MP contracts, because Mak Im Tai is charged with running some of those shelf companies. As such, Lo declined to answer questions related to those cases due to her relationship with Mak Im Tai.
Ho Chio Meng’s lawyer, Leong Weng Pun, interjected that the flight tickets were also related to contract outsourcing. The prosecution thus chose to dismiss Lo Sio Lan as a witness.
Ho made his statement before the court officially concluded the morning hearing.
He said that Beijing’s Chinese Culture Promotion Society and the Macau MP have an equal relationship, with both sides paying for each other’s hotels and flight tickets whenever events take place.
Judge Song Man Lei informed the parties that, after due investigation, the court decided to add additional facts to the agarwood case.
In particular, the court revealed that one agarwood case was completely handled by prosecutor Wu Hio, while another was jointly handled by Wu and a second prosecutor Lao Ian Chi.
Song clarified that Ho Chio Meng did not interfere in either of those cases, that no written records could be found in the MP which indicated otherwise.
The afternoon session started at 3 p.m. with witness Wong Wai San appearing to testify.
Wong currently works for the MP in the area of public relations. In particular, she helps the department book flight tickets and host guests. Wong previously worked for Chan Ka Fai’s department, and also made proposals for the MP’s outsourcing of contracts.
Wong said that during Ho’s administration, MP’s services were generally outsourced through two methods: the MP would either consult three companies regarding the prices of certain services, or would directly outsource work to one specific company without ever making public tenders. According to Wong, Chan would give her blueprints upon which she would base the proposals.
Prosecutor Kuok questioned Wong about the results of the services provided by some of the alleged shelf companies in Ho’s case. Wong said that she was only responsible for paper work, and that other issues were overseen by other colleagues.
Kuok also observed that many of Wong’s accommodation and hotel proposals did not carry the names of those intended to use them, instead being addressed to MP employees. However, one proposal clearly reads that the MP booked a room in a hotel in Zhuhai for an 18-year-old person. Kuok noted that this person could not have been a member of MP staff.
Wong explained that she reported the situation to Chan, and that she did not approve the invoice for that booking. Wong claims she assumed Chan might have forwarded the invoice to a third colleague in order to obtain approval.
She believed that the companies would only request payment if they had actually provided services.
Wong told Kuok that the MP would sometimes label services “confidential” or “urgent” to outsource them to a specific company directly.
Wong did not dispute the price of a remote service in a proposal she made, which was presented as evidence by the prosecutors. Wong said that her superior gave her the quotes according to which she made the proposal.
Wong also told Ho’s lawyer, Leong Weng Pun, that, on several occasions when booking flights for the MP, she did not always know who the tickets were intended for because she booked the flights through a public relations company.
Wong told Leong that her former higher official, Chan Ka Fai, had been her colleague before he was employed by the MP. Chan later invited her to work for the MP. Prior to being hired, Wong said that Lai Kin Ian interviewed her for a position at the MP.
Wong hosted mainland prosecutors in the past, including those from the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of China. However, Wong was unaware of whether these guests had been to the Hotline Center’s 16th-floor Teachers’ Resting Room, or to the Cheoc Van’s accommodation villa.
The witness said that she never received any complaints regarding the MP’s outsourced services.
Presiding Judge Sam Hou Fai remarked that Wong did what Chan asked of her without attempting to verify the authenticity of the contents of each contract.
The trial continues at 9.30 a.m. today.
No Comments