Former Chief of Office of the Prosecutor General of Public Prosecutions Office, Lai Kin Ian, came under heavy fire as the trial of Ho Chio Meng resumed yesterday morning.
In a session that was mainly dedicated to hearing the witness account of former deputy director of the Prosecutions Office (MP) Elsa Cheang, Lai eventually became the main target of the day with “all fingers” pointing in his direction.
Lai, who is a defendant in a different judicial process that resulted from the investigation into Ho’s case, featured prominently in Cheang’s replies.
All bases of the charge were included in questioning, with emphasis on those relevant to the many rentals and services contracts.
When questioned by the prosecution on her repeated recommendations over the need to settle the cleaning service contracts (among others) in a “legal way,” the witness explained that since the service implied a spending of over MOP500,000 it was necessary to follow the law and execute a proper written contract instead of an internal proposal. She said that she had repeatedly made these statements to Lai, who had ignored them.
The prosecutor questioned Cheang about whether or not she had attempted to bring the problem directly to Ho. She responded to this question negatively, arguing that she had fulfilled her duty by informing on the misconduct and advising on the right procedure.
Eventually this problem was solved by resorting to another scheme – designating each floor as an independent account; a situation that Cheang believes was finally solved in a legal way shortly after she had commented.
The witness also informed the court that the MP had received a delegation of guests that were in the Cheoc Van Villa, although there are no official records of these guests or when they made use of the venue. At this point, these alleged visits are a novelty, as none of the previous testimonies included these visits.
Among the alleged guests received at Cheoc Van were the Hong Kong Public Prosecutor, as well as high ranked officials and the Public Prosecutor Guangdong Province.
In one of his many remarks before the break, Ho Chio Meng requested to address the court to note that it “was never said that the villa [of Cheoc Van] was to lodge in guests but to receive them and hold meetings that demanded for a more private and independent venue.”
Throughout the prosecution’s lengthy questioning process, the witness tried to clarify the details of several procedures and duties of the different departments and groups within the MP, reaffirming as others had before, that “acquiring a product or service first and then settling the situation with the Office by a proposal and resorting to ‘backdating’ was a common procedure.”
Regarding the alleged nepotism that is one of the most highlighted topics of this case, Cheang remarked that the applications were all presented to Lai, who would ask whether the applicant would be “okay or not” for the duties in her opinion.
When questioned by the defense lawyer on whether she also presented people to be hired by the MP, the witness admitted to that fact, saying, “in the beginning yes. I was involved in the establishment of the Office and there was an urge for staff.” She added: “I had friends that I thought were competent and yes I recommended some of them to the MP.”
Analyzing specifically the case of Ieong Chon Kit’s hire, a relative of Ho, there were doubts about whether there was any impediment to the declaration from the former Prosecutor on the case since the order was signed by one of the deputies instead of him. The witness suggested that this fact should be ignored, noting, “only from that document I don’t think that was clear any family relationship.
On the topics of the contracts related to both the 16th floor of the Hotline Building and the Accommodation Villa in Cheoc Van, the prosecution was interested to know which person initiated the process. In response, the witness failed to recall the initiator, instead acknowledging only that the first contracts of both venues were signed by Lai. In an apparent contradiction to what she had said earlier, she said, “new contracts were always signed by the [former] Prosecutor. Only the renewals could be [signed by] another person [namely the Chief of Office].”
The reason Ho Chio Meng was not signing those contracts remained unexplained.
Regarding the 16th floor and the warning “not to go to there,” she claimed that this had been a direct order, once more, from Lai.
Witness says ‘resting room’ resembled a hotel room
Testifying yesterday in court was another witness, a former staff member at the Judiciary Assistance Department of the Public Prosecutions Office (MP) surnamed Chan. Chan admitted to having been physically inside the Teachers’ Resting Room on the 16th floor of the Hotline Building on three separate occasions.
“My feeling as I was entering there was that the place resembled a hotel room,” Chan said. “Looked like a big room with several partitions, a living room, a meeting room and a resting room,” he added.
Chan said he was asked to go to the Teacher’s Resting Room by the Chief of the Department, Lam I Nah so he could help to set up a new computer located in the resting room.
He admitted that at that time Lam warned him not to mention to anyone else that he had been in that space.
The other two times, Chan was also asked to go to the room to handle a repair job regarding the internet line. He was called once by Lai and the other time by Leong I Tak. On one of the times, he was accompanied not only by Leong but also by two workers that were doing some renovations in the space.
When called to identify the people in several photographs, Chan recognized only the brother of Lam I Nah but admitted to be unaware of whether he was a staff member at the MP. He also recognized Wong Kuok Wai as “Wai go,” the person in charge of several maintenance and renovation works.
No Comments