Ho’s lawyer denies accusations against former prosecutor

The trial of the city’s former top prosecutor Ho Chio Meng continued yesterday for another session after Ho’s lawyer, Oriana Pun, was unable to complete her closing arguments during last Friday’s court session, during which the prosecution repeatedly leveled accusations against Ho.

The morning session focused on Ho’s alleged abuse of his previous powers to outsource contracts to shell companies, and on Ho’s alleged establishment of a criminal ring operating several shell companies.

Previously, a few witnesses had been called to testify on Ho’s leading roles within said shell companies.

When the afternoon session started, prosecutor Chan Tsz Kin declared that each contract which had been outsourced to the shell companies represents a single crime.

“1,359 contracts total 1,359 criminal behaviors,” said Chan, who also noted that Ho Chio Meng, when faced with a large number of objective facts, “denied accusations made against him, used excuses to shirk his responsibilities, did not confess or cooperate,” adding that Ho “lost a chance of getting a commuted sentence.” The prosecutor even cited Zhang Dejiang, Chairman of the National People’s Congress and the official responsible for overseeing Hong Kong and Macau affairs, that the Prosecutor General’s power should be used “cautiously, for the people, and according to the law.” Chan referred to this remark to indicate how Ho should have used his power as the MSAR’s Prosecutor General.

“Supervising others should start from supervising ourselves with higher standards,” Chan said, while approaching the last segment of his closing submission.

He then suggested that the court should consider the fact that Ho Chio Meng was a high-ranked official, and that regardless of the amount of money involved in his case, the case still has a deep and negative impact on the Public Prosecutions Office (MP) and prosecutors.

As such, Chan requested that the court “punish [Ho] heavily.”

According to Chan, the prosecution requests for Ho Chio Meng to pay more than MOP 70 million to the MP.

Moreover, the prosecutor requested that the court make a fair judgment.

Following the end of the prosecution’s closing arguments, Ho Chio Meng’s lawyer, Oriana Pun, began by expressing that she was not trying to be offensive.

Pun said that the case “relates to Ho Chio Meng’s life and death.” The lawyer criticized the probe made by the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC). Pun said that many “facts” in the accusations against Ho were based on investigations led by CCAC, which she deemed “very suspicious.” In addition, Pun accused the prosecution of making the presumption of guilt, and to have based the indictment on biased evidence and CCAC investigations.

According to Pun, CCAC did not verify some of the evidence provided by Ho Chio Meng, and their investigation was biased against Ho, being “inconsistent with the facts.”

She accused the CCAC of having a “rich imagination” throughout the investigations in Ho’s case.
“Even if Ho Chio Meng sneezed it would have been equal to giving an instruction,” said Pun.

During a previous trial session, a CCAC commissioner provided a PowerPoint file that the court accepted as evidence.

However, the file had not been previously included in the indictment file.  Pun expressed her disagreement towards this incident, deeming that the file violated the debate and was mixed with other evidence.

“It gives people a feeling that the entire thing is real,” complained Pun, while insisting on the CCAC’s alleged biased investigation. “[If] a lie is true after being said many times, why is the PowerPoint needed?” asked Pun, adding that the file contained many mistakes.

Pun also indicated that the prosecution department, when investigating Ho Chio Meng and therefore themselves, had only two options: either they could understand the case, or they could
be against Ho.

According to Pun, some of the facts have not been confirmed, so the court should refuse to accept them as evidence. “Witnesses should only speak about facts, [if they] talk about feelings their statements should be disregarded,” explained Pun, adding that CCAC did not invite a professional organization to properly assess some of the evidence.

Pun also remarked that wrong investigations lead to wrong answers.

“Many of the testimonies given by MP employees have reservations, and I hope that the court can spend some effort to look at some of the accusations,” said Pun.

“It’s not that we don’t want to find witnesses,” clarified Pun, adding that “some of them cannot come, some of them dare not come because they have been influenced by the news or by other reasons. We don’t have enough time to prepare all the documents.”

The lawyer suggested the court to not listen to the testimonies selectively.

“If people say you committed crimes but, in reality, you did not, then it is extremely difficult for you to prove your innocence,” said Pun.

“Presumption of innocence and the benefit of doubt are with the defendant.”

According to Pun, Ho Chio Meng, as the previous leader and a high official of MP, needed to handle confidential and sensitive information at times, just like it was also necessary for him to meet with some people discreetly.

The lawyer also said that Ho, as Prosecutor General, could not name certain people and places in court, “including those which are more important than himself, and that he needs to defend.” 

Until now, Pun’s closing submissions have denied accusations against Ho that deem him guilty of fraud, specifically related to Wang Xiandi, a woman allegedly hired by Ho to work for MP but did not work for the department.

Ho also stands accused of keeping pieces of agarwood seized by the Customs Service in his personal collection, back in 2013.

Ho’s lawyer said that the agarwood never left the MP, deeming that these accusations should not be made against Ho because his subordinate did not file records according to the regulations.

For the one and a half days that the closing submission session lasted, the prosecution used two mornings to lay out accusations against Ho.

Ho’s lawyer presented her submissions in one afternoon. The closing submission sessions were previously planned to take place on May 11 and May 12. As Ho’s lawyer did not complete her closing submission, court resumes today.