The trial of the region’s former top prosecutor, Ho Chio Meng, continued yesterday at the Court of Final Appeal. The witnesses present all used to provide services for the Public Prosecutions Office (MP) and the Office of the Prosecutor-General.
The witnesses worked for companies that obtained contracts from the shelf companies which were allegedly opened by Ho in accordance with other businessmen, including Wong Kuok Wai.
The first witness was a former employee at a company that provided remote supervision services to the MP. In his testimony, the witness said that until his company received a contract from the alleged shelf companies, the MP’s security CCTV was connected to the Public Security Police Force (PSP) and to CTM. After the contract was awarded to the witness’ company, MP’s CCTV was disconnected from the PSP.
The second witness, a woman surnamed Leong who is currently the owner of a cleaning company, previously cleaned some of the MP’s properties.
The prosecution displayed some pictures of the MP’s “Teachers’ Resting Room” at the Hotline Center 16th floor.
The witness said that she never saw as many items inside the rooms as was showed in the pictures, although she did remember seeing a bed in the room.
She testified that when she had finished her cleaning duties, she would go to the Hotline Center to pick up her payment which she presumed came from the MP.
In response to a question by Ho Chio Meng’s lawyer, Leong Weng Pun, the witness said that she cleaned places for other governmental departments such as the Civil and Municipal Affairs Bureau (IACM).
These departments would invite her company to bid for a public tender, or she would simply provide them with a quote when she saw they were advertising, noting that she would provide these quotes before her company was awarded the contract for the work.
According to a picture displayed by the lawyer, for one public tender, the witness quoted a figure that was higher, (a minimum of MOP300,000 higher) than the quotes of other companies.
She explained that there were no unified standards within the cleaning industry.
After this question, presiding judge Sam Hou Fai pointed out that the lawyer had already posed this question to many witnesses, pointing out that every company is allowed to calculate its own budget and standards within a free market.
The third witness of the day currently owns a pest control company. The man, from 2004 until 2015, provided pest control services to several offices under the MP’s administration, including Cheoc Van Villa’s.
He noted that he was awarded all of his MP contracts by Wong Kuok Wai, noting that two shelf companies allegedly run by Wong Kuok Wai and others definitely did not have specific pest control services and as such, his company provided them.
The witness visited every location involved in the cases currently related to the trial where he was requested to provide services, accompanied by Wong, who also accompanied the witness’s employees to MP’s offices.
He explained that when he provided services to other governmental departments, they would contract his company directly.
However, in some cases, his company would also be invited by another company, which had aquired a government contract but was unsuited for carrying out a particular task. The witness gave the example of a renovation company requiring help from a pest control company
Another witness, a man surnamed Chu, previously provided printer maintenance services to the MP. He said that a person surnamed Lam invited him to provide the services.
Another witness was a man surnamed Lam who is currently a civil servant working for the Legal Affairs Bureau (DSAJ). Previously, Lam worked for an advertisement company that served the MP.
Lam said that government departments would normally contact his company directly if they needed services. However, he said that he did not find it strange that his company was contacted by another company to provide services for a governmental department, as happened with his company’s contract award for the MP. According to Lam, sometimes the first company was unable to finish all works or did not have the necessary technology. In those situations, the company would look for another one with the necessary skills to subcontract the work to them.
Lam revealed that in the instance when another company engaged his own, he would normally add a specific percentage on top of the price.
All witnesses who were questioned in the morning said that their companies provided half-
year, one-year or two-year services to governmental departments.
When the afternoon trial resumed at 3 p.m., five more witnesses were called to testify.
All five were responsible for companies that previously provided services to the MP, although their companies received the service requests from the alleged shelf companies rather than the MP directly.
Among the services provided by the companies of the various witnesses were air conditioning maintenance, sale of flowers and electronic devices, and travel agency related services.
The first witness said that his company bid for an MP public tender, but it failed. However, he was later approached by Wong to provide services to the MP.
Another witness said that when he started providing services to the MP, it was because one of the alleged shelf companies contacted him.
The last witness, surnamed Tse, worked for a travel agency. The public relations company involved in Ho’s case booked flights and hotels from Ho’s company. Alex Lam (another defendant in Ho’s case) allegedly contracted Tse to book the tickets and rooms.
The court will resume tomorrow.
No Comments