Courts | Ho Chio Meng to judge, journalists: ‘Help me, please’

The former public prosecutor general, Ho Chio Meng called yesterday for the help of the court and journalists present at the latest session of the trial in which he is defendant.

As has become the pattern over the course of proceedings, just before the lunch break of yesterday’s session, the defendant stood to comment on facts previously discussed during the hearing of an investigator from the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) who had investigated Ho’s case.

However, this time Ho requested the court’s assistance to obtain important information from the three witnesses who were listed to be heard during last week’s court sessions but did not attend.

“They could testify. They could prove many important things like the use of the Teachers’ Resting Room and of the Cheoc Van villa and also the trip to Denmark,” Ho said anxiously.

During the statement, Ho partially revealed the identity of these witnesses, noting that they were the director of the Public Prosecutions        Office of Guangdong province, the head of the Public Prosecutions Office of the city of Zhuhai and “the most important one,” a high ranked official from China’s Supreme Court.

Regarding the Supreme Court official, Ho remarked that he knew they could not come to Macau to testify due to the “one country, two systems” constitutional principle, but he requested the help of the Court of Final Appeal (TUI) to find ways to hear their testimony regardless.

Previously (on at least two instances during the first sessions of the case), Ho had requested help from the Liaison Office which had “refused to help him,” saying that people he believed to be friends had turned their backs on him.

Exiting the courtroom yesterday, Ho  addressed a similar call for help to the journalists, saying “Help me, please.”

During the morning session, the court proceeded with the hearing of a CCAC investigator  reviewed the findings from the department related to contracts awarded for  cleaning and security, plague prevention,  copying machines maintenance and air conditioning, rental and plant maintenance.

The witness, with the help of the prosecution, sought to establish a link between the contracts, proposals, and minutes found within the Public Prosecutions Office (MP) archives with the support of electronic documents found on MP computers and other electronic devices, primarily from Lam Hou Un and Wang Xiandi. Both Lam and Wang are also accused of taking part in the scheme to benefit from the profits of an alleged criminal organization led by Ho.

The investigator tried to prove that the accused would take “commissions greater than usual,” for these contracts, in addition to the fact that several measures were taken within the MP to evade the law in different ways to directly award contracts instead of going through the mandatory public tender process.

On the other hand, the defendant’s lawyer, Oriana Pun, sought to refute questioning on the position Ho held in relation to those cases.

The investigator replied that the former prosecutor general, in the cases prior to 2011, had signed the final proposal that led to the contracts being awarded.

Pun also remarked that two people who were not defendants in any of the cases have also spoken on the matter, calling for the presentation of concrete evidence that Ho knew of the issue, and moreover, actually directed the contracts to be awarded.

The investigator then commented on the creation of the so-called “general management group,” which was created by Ho, and was allegedly responsible for the processes that led to the criminal acts.

Pun once again asked for proof that Ho was directly involved, but the investigator failed to provide it, claiming, “they are in some small things.”

Also in his remarks before the lunch break, Ho expressed his repulsion over the prospect that the “general management group” had sought to commit crimes, explaining that the group was “created to do many works that no department wanted to take. Small and diverse things that were important.”

Polytec owner involved in Ho’s trial

Or Wai Sheun, real estate tycoon and owner of Polytec Group, was unexpectedly involved in Ho Chio Meng’s trial yesterday.

Or was suggested to be involved in Ho’s acquisition of an apartment in the Villa del Mer building, a development of Polytec Group in the Areia Preta area.

The accusation is that the residential unit was acquired for a discount of about 25 percent from market value (around HKD 2 million) by Mak Im Tai, one of the alleged leaders of one of the shelf companies, who is being trialed separately in the Court of First Instance (TJB).

Mak was allegedly a friend and a partner of Or in other businesses, and was afforded special benefits in acquisitions, benefits that he eventually passed to Chao Sio Fu, Ho’s wife, with the consent of Or.

The information came during the hearing of three witnesses who were all managers in different departments within Polytec Group.

The last of the three was a member of the finance department named Ip, and she admitted to have been the person who provided extensive information to the TUI on the case.

However, she did not fully explain at the time the unaccounted figure of HDK2 million, despite the presence of receipts for the sum. During yesterday’s trial, she explained that this was because it “covered” the discount offered by Or to Mak, as the sum was eventually paid back into Polytec Group accounts with money allegedly from the owner of the company who had given orders to use an account from another company owned by Or – Hongs Trading company – to repay the missing money. Polytec is listed on the Hong Kong stock market and could not risk being penalized for these actions.

Ip sought to explain why Or and Polytec Group took so many risks and performed several illegal financial tasks to benefit the former public prosecutor.

She said that such activities were “not exceptional within the company,” although she failed to give concrete figures on how many times similar acts were done in the past.

Before the closing of the session, Ho made a statement, saying,  “I have no knowledge of any benefit or discount given to me,” stating once again that the house was bought in his wife’s name.

Ho also said that he paid the price in full “believing that was the family [brothers and sisters] that had paid that first part.”