Leong Weng Pun
A surprising episode rocked yesterday’s trial of former top prosecutor, Ho Chio Meng, when his defense lawyer, Leong Weng Pun, together with Ho’s entire defense team, decided to exit the case.
In the morning, the trial finished earlier than usual. Leong was interrupted several times by the judge when he was questioning a witness. He even hinted that apparently the court was siding with the prosecution. Following those remarks, Leong expressed his desire to discuss with Ho whether his team should keep defending him, since he was constantly being interrupted.
In the afternoon, the court remained expectant during the approximately 15 minutes that followed 3 p.m.
It was then announced that since the defense lawyer had withdrawn from the case, the afternoon court would be adjourned.
After walking out of the Court of Final Appeal (TUI), Leong told the media that discontinuing Ho’s appointment was not associated with the chances of winning, as he noted he and his team expend all efforts in every case they take on. The lawyer noted that it was the first time in his career that he had to give up a case for not being able to defend a plaintiff. Asked if the court was impartial, Leong remarked: “That is a good question. You all saw what happened. We made an effort and gave our best… You know the rest, you know the details. It is not me who should comment. I leave that to each person’s discretion.”
Before the session was adjourned yesterday, only one witness, surnamed Chan, was called to the court. Chan serves as top investigator at the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC), and participated in investigations against Ho.
During the morning session, Chan said that the alleged shell companies would be quickly awarded Public Prosecutions Office (MP) service contracts upon adding new services to their portfolio.
For instance, one shell company registered themselves as a renovation company, listing air conditioning maintenance in their service portfolio shortly before having received the MP’s air conditioning maintenance contract.
In another instance, one of the shell companies illegitimately received a pest control service contract from the MP.
In a proposal written by another defendant, Chan Ka Fai who is department head at the MP, Cha stated that the relevant company possessed the latest machinery to be used for that service.
However, after the contract was awarded to this alleged shell company, it outsourced the service to another company, which effectively provided services to the MP.
Chan then revealed that the alleged shell companies would
alternate with other shell companies to take over the MP’s service contracts in order to avoid detection while providing the same range of services to the MP for a long period of time.
However, Leong adduced three documents bearing the same fax number as evidence that the companies were not trying to avoid detection.
Chan said that some of the contracts given to the shell companies by the MP were not implemented by the companies, because no signs whatsoever indicated that they had provided services to the MP.
Chan revealed that the companies would always outsource contracts to another company which would then provide services to the MP.
Leong went on to question whether some of the specific services were actually completed.
Chan emphasized that the works were not provided by the shell companies.
When Leong reiterated that he wanted to know whether these services were completed, the witness replied that the services were indeed completed but that he did not know by whom.
In Chan’s testimony, he said that the shell companies had only four employees.
The defense lawyer pointed out that there were part-time
employees in addition, namely Wong Kuok Wai (the defendant who is accused of establishing the shelf companies), and Lai Kun Pun (another defendant).
Leong also mentioned that one company which provided services to the MP had no employees, and questioned whether Wong Kuok Wai and Lai Kun Pun could be considered employees. However, judge Lai Kin Hong said that it was common knowledge that that company did indeed have employees.
In response, Leong remarked that the judge ought to adopt a neutral stance.
Later, Chan declared that the alleged shell companies would always provide the Public Prosecutions Office with higher-than-average quotations.
However, Leong observed that a document produced by Chan showed that the Prosecution Office had estimated it spent MOP10,000 to purchase computer software, and that these companies in fact offered a cheaper price to the MP that competitors.
Leong then told Chan that CCAC only compared offers made by companies if the offers were higher than the market average, not lower.
Judge Lai Kin Hong then stated that MP’s estimated price could not be compared to the real market price and to the eventual price.
Lai also noted that the prosecution was looking for crimes committed by Ho Chio Meng, and he deemed it unnecessary to discuss what Ho did legally.
Leong argued that he was simply explaining all the facts to the court, elaborating that he hoped the court could adjudicate the case from the perspective of a neutral and balanced observer.
Afterwards, Leong said that he had been confronted with difficulties while defending his client, and notified the judges that his entire team needed to talk to Ho about whether they should continue defending him, requesting ten minutes for this discussion to occur.
Five days to get a new lawyer
Reacting to Leong Weng Pun’s withdrawal from the case, TUI issued a statement indicating that Ho Chio Meng had a timeframe of 5 days to find a new lawyer, before the court would appoint a lawyer to defend him. The statement added that the court sessions scheduled for March 10 and 13 were postponed. Leong Weng Pun is obliged to notify the court of the reasons behind his decision to drop the case.
Lawyers Association head expresses concern
The president of the Macau Lawyers Association, Jorge Neto Valente, reacted to the stepping down of Ho’s lawyer. Speaking to TDM, Neto Valente said that the incident was regrettable. “A case where a lawyer is forced to take such a stance during a trial is not unheard of, but it is uncommon and, certainly regrettable. That leaves me concerned,” Neto Valente said.
No Comments