Former Tak Chun Group boss Levo Chan became somewhat emotional as he addressed his concluding statement to the court.
The first court hearing for his case, in which he and 33 other people were accused of crimes including but not limited to forming and operating criminal syndicate and illicit gambling, has recently reached the stage of concluding statements.
Chan was the last person in the most recent court session to speak.
He stated that his now-defunct company had started with only a few dozen people and had expanded to a scale capable of supporting several hundreds, if not thousands, of staff members.
“I don’t dare say how much Tak Chun has contributed to Macau’s economic and social development, but we have definitely played a role in it,” the former junket mogul said.
He also took the opportunity to deny the accusations of a criminal syndicate and triad gang, claiming that the accused staff member was innocent and was only working diligently.
“Knowing that their families felt depressed and frustrated since the matter broke up, I feel extremely apologetic,” he confessed, before moving to discuss his own situation.
“I have a 90-year-old father and two two-year-old children… I have heard that my father often wept privately,” he said, pausing briefly and inhaling deeply. “My two daughters asked my wife why daddy hadn’t returned home.”
He persuaded the judge to plead not guilty on behalf of him and his co-defendants, as Tak Chun is not a criminal syndicate.
At the same time, Chan’s lawyer, Leong Hon Man, referred to the presumption of innocence to suggest that his client’s judgement should be made without fear or favor.
Leong first questioned why Tak Chun needed to resort to illegal deeds when it had a multibillion yearly income that was scrutinized by certified auditors. He also pointed out that testimonies given by former Tak Chun staff were “indirect and word-of-mouth.” He then suggested that judging 21st-century practices with 27-year-old law may not be suitable, before referring to the casino operators’ responsibilities in the case.
Leong then emphasized that if Chan wanted to evade any accusations, he would not have undergone criminal prosecutions in Macau.
In his concluding statement, defence lawyer Alex Ai Linzhi questioned what the government had done to control the “monstrous” development of the gambling industry, and accused the testifying officials of the Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) of being unapologetic when they said they inspected casinos every day but could not find evidence of parallel gambling.
The prosecution, meanwhile, held that Chan should be found guilty of 83 charges.
Prosecutor-Coordinator Tam I Kuan emphasized that through the court hearings, she considered the accusations “highly justified.” Although the six defendants accused of the illicit gambling in approved venues denied the accusation, the parallel gambling practices were conducted in the name of Tak Chun, with the awareness of the six people.
Despite positioning to pitch gamblers for the six casino operators, Tak Chun “violated” the contract and caused loss to the government through parallel gambling. This has also led to erroneous reports of gross gambling revenue due to unreliable turnover reported to the casino operators.
Prosecutor-Coordinator Lai U Hou found Chan’s explanation on destroying company documents – so as to protect gamblers’ data – unreasonable. He added that the conduct was against the mandatory preservation provision.
He also asked the court to designate all seized properties to the government to compensate the latter’s loss.
The presiding judge announced that the verdict on the case will be handed down on April 21.
