Ho Chio Meng’s former right-hand man testifies on trips to Europe

Ho Chio Meng’s lawyer, Leong Weng Pun

The trial of former Prosecutor-General Ho Chio Meng went through another session on Friday at the Court of Final Appeal. The former Chief of the Office of the Prosecutor-General, Lai Kin Ian, was present as a witness to provide his testimony regarding one of the accusations levelled against Ho.

Ho stands accused of regularly taking individuals who were not employees of the Public Prosecution Office (MP) on trips to Europe, some of which included his wife and nephew with all expenses covered by the MP, under the guise of official visits.

Prosecutors presented a note drafted by Lai, stating that Ho would visit Northern Europe. They questioned Lai whether this trip was reported to the Chief Executive (CE) before it happened.

Lai claimed that he did overhear Ho calling the CE, but did not know exactly what Ho told the CE. He claimed that he had only a vague impression of the conversation rather than exact details.

The prosecutors asked Lai whether a written report had been delivered to the CE to provide details of the trip.

Lai said that in accordance with the regulations regarding the relationship between Ho and the CE, sometimes written reports would be provided but sometimes there would be only verbal reports.

After Ho and the others had reviewed the initial budget for the trip, the final bill that travel agencies delivered to the MP exceeded the original budget.

Other evidence provided by the MP showed that the people who eventually travelled to Europe were not part of Lai’s original plan. Lai was questioned about whether he knew who actually went to Northern Europe.

However Lai claimed that he did not remember exactly who went on the trip, which took place in August.

Regarding Ho’s premature departure for Europe before the beginning of the official visit, and his return to Macau after the conclusion of the official trip, Lai said  that Portuguese prosecutors had occasionally visited Portugal during August and September. Moreover, given the approved vacation period, they had the option of going to Portugal prior to official visits and returning to Macau after their conclusion.

Lai emphasized that the government had looked after Portuguese prosecutors “quite a lot.”

Lai added that he has a few memories of Portuguese prosecutors accompanying Ho on trips to Europe.

According to him, the MP had paid for the accommodation, food, and transportation of the Portuguese prosecutors, but the prosecutors’ relatives had paid for their own flight tickets.

Ho’s lawyer, Leong Weng Pun, questioned Lai on whether there had been more trips where government officials visited places aside from those included in their official itineraries.

Lai admitted that this had happened on occasion and that even the Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, Alexis Tam, had made such visits.

Lai recalled an official trip to Beijing with Tam, then the chief of CE’s Office, which was followed by a trip to Fujian that was fully paid for by the government.

Presiding judge Sam Hou Fai reminded Lai that all civil servants’ official outbound visits must be supported by the CE, a regulation of which Lai claimed to be unaware.

As the morning session of the trial neared its conclusion, Ho clarified that the trip of which he stands accused had not been an official government trip. He went on to say that the city has travel regulations for certain main government officials.

“There was a report, Lai is a good chief,” said Ho. “If it is not a governmental event, there is no need for a written report.”

The prosecutors asked why the MP chose the Hotline Center to open the “teachers’ resting room.” Lai said that he had not visited the place since its renovation works were completed and added that Ho had told him not to visit the place unless strictly necessary.

The prosecution then displayed a picture of the entire 16th floor of the building that the MP had rented. One directory indicated that one room on that floor belonged to the MP, while the rest of the rooms had no directories.

At this point in the trial, Ho Chio Meng raised his hand and asked why a directory was needed if a room was not an independent department.

The court took a two-hour recess before it resumed at 3 p.m. According to Sam Hou Fai, Lai was only supposed to be a witness for half a day, but was in court for two days.

When the trial resumed in the afternoon, the prosecution called a Judiciary Police (PJ) officer, who had worked in the police force for more than ten years as a handwriting examiner.

The prosecutors presented one manuscript seized from Ho’s former residence, which is believed to have been written by Ho.

In the manuscript were some sentences that the prosecution believes are related to Ho’s shelf companies.

The police officer answered several questions regarding the process he identified as a manuscript.

Ho, at the end of the afternoon trial, said the writing could not be proven as his.

The trial continues at 9.30 a.m. today.