The case concerning former junket and entertainment mogul, Alvin Chau, and 20 other defendants had its first court hearing last Friday, with the government seeking nearly HKD8.3 billion in compensation.
Another way to assess the government’s entitlement to compensation is the amount of tax the government should have received during Chau’s alleged operations of illegal gambling, the government added.
Chau is alleged to have committed several crimes, including organized crime, the operation of illegal gambling in eligible venues, fraud of a relatively large amount, the illegal operation of gambling and aggravated money laundering.
The other 20 defendants are alleged to have committed crimes similar to either all or some of Chau’s alleged crimes.
The government, as well as Wynn Resorts (Macau) S.A., SJM Resorts, S.A., MGM Grand Paradise, S.A. and Venetian Macao, S.A., have filed civil claims against the defendants. The four casino operators respectively seek MOP795 million, HKD178 million, an amount to be determined, as well as HKD300 million from all or some of the defendants.
The session did not proceed after announcement of the allegations as the defendant Wong Pak Ling was absent. The court announced a subsequent hearing to occur at 2:45 pm, September 19. In fact, 10 other defendants were absent as well.
Members of the public were queuing hours before the hearing commenced. Chau’s son, Chau Pak Hou, was in the audience. The court designated another room to host audience members who could not be hosted at the main courtroom.
Chau’s son told the press his father was in fair physical condition.
The hearing was heard by a panel of three judges, with Justice Lou Ieng Ha presiding. Lou was not happy about the absence of the 11 defendants. Although one defendant’s lawyer claimed the absence was due to hospitalization, the presiding judge considered the absence unreasonable and issued a fine of 8 Court Units (UC).
A UC is currently set at MOP910.
Court strictly enforces Covid-19 measures
Citing Covid-19 measures, the court allowed each defendant to bring only a lawyer to the courtroom. Justice Lou explained she had tried her best to satisfy everybody and strike a balance between all needs.
Some lawyers claimed they needed to bring their assistants to the courtroom due to the large number of files and data needed for the hearings. Justice Lou refused this request, adding that lawyers were free to refuse the cases if they experienced difficulties.
The judge added that disease prevention is of the highest priority. The procedures cannot be sidelined, she said, as an outbreak may happen abruptly.
Meanwhile, due to the situation, some defense lawyers asked to sit on the prosecution side. Lou also refused this request, finding the suggestion inappropriate. She added that if anybody wanted to be seated on that side, they were free to become a prosecutor.
Justice Lou also pointed out that the numbers were not balanced between the number of defending and prosecuting lawyers. The prosecution is represented by only two lawyers.
The court also reminded the lawyers responsible for this case to try their best to maintain their “green-code” status. Lawyers without such a code would be replaced by another lawyer due to time constraints.
Anybody with a yellow health code will be refused entry to the court.
