Jackson Chang
The opening court hearing on the corruption allegation against Jackson Chang, the former president of the Macao Trade and Investment Promotion Institute (IPIM), was finally held yesterday after being postponed twice.
The former head of the IPIM, which was the government entity that handled immigration through investment, was charged by the Commission Against Corruption for allegedly taking bribes to foster immigration approvals. The immigration channel no longer exists now due to a change of policy.
This case has a total of 26 defendants. The prosecution has registered 90 witnesses. Only 10 defendants were present at this first hearing. The fourth defendant, Ng Kuok Sau, was absent, while his wife and fifth defendant, Annette Ng, was present. The Ngs were the owners of a construction company and were accused of helping people with their immigration applications in the name of their company.
Annette Ng denied the accusations of fabricating documents to deceive the IPIM, saying that she had six children to take care of and was never present in office more than once a week.
In addition, she declared in the court that she had no knowledge of the actual number of companies under her name. Moreover, she was only responsible for signing documents and was authorized to handle the company’s funds. Furthermore, Annette Ng said that she neither read into the details of the documents nor was she aware of the relationship between her husband and Chang.
The second defendant, Ian Iat Chun, who was an IPIM employee at the time, denied that he was allowed to purchase five residential apartments built in Hengqin by the Ngs’ company at prices below market value in return for immigration perks.
According to Ian, Ng Kuok Sau had claimed that he wanted to attract more construction talent to Macau but had complained about the complexity of the IPIM’s procedures. Ian stressed that he had left the IPIM at the time and provided his opinion free-of-charge. He thought that the information that Ng Kuok Sau had provided was true.
The first two court sessions were both unsuccessful due to an insufficient number of defendants present. At the second session, which was unsuccessful since only 10 defendants were present before the court, the presiding judge, Leong Fong Meng, stated that the third hearing would be held regardless of the number of defendants present, pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
No Comments