Courts | IPIM: One more case and another ‘front company’ unveiled by CCAC investigators

The corruption case involving several former high-ranked officials from the Macao Trade and Investment Promotion Institute (IPIM), who stand accused of unlawful actions in the granting of Macau residency permits, continued yesterday at the Court of First Instance.
During yesterday’s session, the court continued to hear investigators from the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC), who played a part in the investigation. Similar to the previous session, the investigators revealed more companies under the control and ownership of Ng Kuok Sao, the fourth defendant in the case, which were allegedly used as “front companies” to request residency rights for people who did not meet the requirements.
This time, the court heard about a particular case of a woman from the mainland named Ouyang Yushang, who in December 2011 and through the help of Ng’s companies and staff, submitted an application to IPIM as a senior administrative staff member of a media company named Agora Macau.
According to the CCAC’s investigation, the media company owned by Ng and his wife, was registered with the Government Information Bureau (GCS) as publishing a weekly newspaper.
Ouyang had allegedly been hired as the general manager of the publishing company and also performing the role of the editor of the publication.
As in previous sessions, the CCAC investigator mentioned many documents found to be in the possession of Ouyang during the investigation, as well as in the homes of staff members and at the headquarters of One Kin Construction Company, where the staff involved in the scheme worked.
Within the documents shown, the investigator noted an agreement sealing the deal between Ng and Ouyang, where amounts and conditions were stated. The document further stipulated that she had to pay for the application to IPIM (RMB500,000), which included a first non-refundable payment of the amount of RMB200,000.
As revealed in other sessions during the trial, several documents presented to IPIM had mismatching dates such as the start date for the job at Agora Macau and the date stated in the working contract, as well as the dates registered with the Financial Services Bureau and Social Welfare Bureau, among others.
As with previous cases, the accusation was that all the documents had originated in the office of One Kin and that they all had been produced in a forged manner by the company staff with the purpose of submitting them to IPIM.
For the same purpose, the investigator also used many text or voice message communications between the staff of One Kin and Ng, where problems were reported, and guidelines were being given on how to proceed.
Despite the many inaccuracies in the process, Ouyang managed to get a Macau residency permit and a resident identification card for a period of three years, until the time to renew such a permit arrived.
Ouyang supposedly worked at the company between late 2011 and 2015 when she applied for renewal. However, according to documents shown by the CCAC in court, which had originated from the Public Security Police Force, she only stayed in Macau for about five to seven days each year, leading to the investigator to claim that she could not carry out her job duties like she mentioned and she also had no way to prove she received the salary of MOP40,000, as stated in the applications.
On that particular note, and in trying to prove such point, the CCAC made a comparison between the salary of Ouyang and the Director of the publication, showing that the Director only earned some MOP84,000 per year, while Ouyang presented a salary of MOP480,000 in the same period.
The investigator also noted to the court that the Agora Macau, even during the time that it was published, had a maximum circulation per year of only 8,000 and was a very small company with few staff members, who at the time Ouyang allegedly joined the company, were earning wages ranging between MOP4,000 and MOP7,000 per month.
Eventually, the company attempted to change the name of the publication in July 2014, and their license was finally canceled by the GCS in March 2017. This was mentioned in a written reply to the CCAC, explaining that it took such a decision unilaterally because the company had not presented any proof of operation for a period of over one year.
In the same manner seen in previous sessions, the CCAC investigator showed documentary proof supporting the accusation’s theory of a criminal organization led by Ng and supported by his wife and several staff members, which had the purpose of obtaining unlawful residency permits for mainland residents in exchange for large sums of money.
The trial continues today with more testimonies relating to the case.