Courts | MP rentals under discussion at Ho Chio Meng’s trial

Ho’s lawyer, Leong Weng Pun

Following the end of the Chinese New Year period, yesterday marked the second day of the post-holiday trial of former top prosecutor Ho Chio Meng. Court procedures continued at Macau’s Court of Final Appeal for the 17th session in Ho’s case.

The prosecution called witness Lee Hoi Sun, head of the Personnel and Finance Department of the Office of the Prosecutor General, to the stand. Unlike previous witnesses in past trials, Lee was present at the court in both the morning and afternoon hearings.

Lee was involved in activities related to the Public Prosecutions Office (MP)’s property rentals, including renting parking spaces, storage and offices.

With regard to the controversial use of the Hotline Center MP office, Lee said that it was a division directly under the administration of the former Chief of Office of the Prosecutor General of the MP, Lai Kin Ian, who was responsible for selecting the location as an office.

In turn, Lee’s department was responsible for approving the financial support for the office’s rental.

Lee was questioned about the owners of the offices. She responded that she only knew two of the owners were her colleagues after reviewing rental references with respect to the office.

According to Lee, the MP initially only rented a section of the floor, and subsequently rented the entire floor after a period of time.

Lee said that while she used to attend training meetings at the MP office, she had never been to the “Teachers’ Resting Room.” The witness claimed she was only made aware of the rooms when she reviewed references provided by the department administrated by Lai.

Lee said that a shopping list for the resting rooms’ amenities had included gym equipment and bedding products. Lee had allegedly questioned her colleagues, having been told that it was the “boss” who had instructed them to purchase the aforementioned amenities. She also said that Ho’s former driver, Mak Hak Neng, contributed to rent a specific parking space. She further revealed that Mak had been a technician at the MP besides being Ho’s driver.

In her response to the questions later posed by Ho’s lawyer, Leong Weng Pun, Lee said that Mak had told her that Ho had instructed him to rent that specific parking space.

Regarding the rental of the MP office, Lee said that Ho was usually the person who approved new rental contracts, while Lai would approve renewals.

Presiding Judge Sam Hou Fai later questioned Lee about the trip to northern Europe during which Ho attended a conference in Denmark.

Lee responded that she had issued proposals for four Portuguese prosecutors to visit Denmark.

Justice Sam then questioned Lee on whether she had seen an official invitation letter issued by the conference’s organizer.  Lee said that she had not seen such a letter.

At the conclusion of the morning trial, Ho intended to make a statement but it was declined by Justice Sam as Lee would be present in the afternoon’s hearing.

Ho nevertheless had the opportunity to remark that his comments would be helpful for the court’s assessment of the events discussed in the morning.

The trial resumed at 3 p.m. with Lee as the only witness in the afternoon.

The prosecution produced receipts of flight tickets to Dubai and questioned why Lee’s department would have approved the payment of the tickets when the trip did not involve any form of business with the MP.

Lee responded that the department would make the trip proposals upon confirmation from the MP’s former department head, Chan Ka Fai.

Lee said that her department was only responsible for paying the bills, and that another division under Chan’s administration was responsible for verifying the expenses.

Lee further stated that while she had noticed there were several companies repeatedly being awarded service contracts by the MP, she did not know that the owners behind the companies were Mak and Wong Kuok Wai, who are accused of having established shelf companies with Ho.

Lee informed the opposing lawyer that Ho had never contacted her about issues related to the making of proposals. She also told him she had never received any reports of poorly completed projects.

A receipt produced in court showed that the MP paid for Ho’s spa service during his official trip.

Lee added that she does not recall having handled cases where she requested for someone to pay for personal services after the MP already had paid the bills.

For one of Ho’s trips, the MP purchased first-class flight tickets for two people. Lee said that by the city’s law, only Ho was qualified to fly in first-class, but claimed that Chan said that there was “no problem” in booking two first-class tickets.

The judge questioned why Lee’s department had not questioned Chan regarding the tickets, given this information about the city’s law, remarking: “You failed in your duty, then?”

Ho made his statement by the end of the afternoon trial, saying that his office was not the only one equipped with bullet-proof glass, as the entire MP’s office at Dynasty Plaza’s seventh floor was also equipped with the same.

He further said that the Personnel and Finance Department is equipped with bullet-proof glass. Judge Sam therefore requested the prosecution to provide evidence on whether the seventh floor’s Personnel and Finance Department is equipped with bullet-proof glass.