Lawyer in bribed prosecutor case pledges independence at work

The lawyer-defendant in the bribery case involving a senior prosecutor has said she maintained impartiality at work despite having had a non-lawyer as an investor.

At a recent hearing, first defendant Kong Chi’s lawyer questioned fourth defendant Kuan Hoi Lon. She responded that her law firm – founded with the investment of second defendant Choi Sao Ieng as disclosed earlier – had taken a variety of cases, such as criminal, civil, administrative and contract, according to a report by local media All About Macau.

When questioned by Kong’s other defense lawyer about her impartiality after being hired by a non-lawyer, Kuan said Choi did not ask for details about the cases she was handling. Nor was she asked by Choi to report progress or details of the cases. However, Choi was asked about the closure dates of cases and legal fees collected.

Kuan said cases referred to the law firm by Choi accounted for about 20% of her total workload, 30% of which were criminal cases.

Kuan also disclosed that during the partnership, Choi banked MOP50,000 to MOP60,000 for the law firm each month, which was used for salaries and company expenditure. She denied the sum came from illegal activities, and explained that fluctuations existed due to changes in salary or the number of employees.

In an earlier hearing, Choi said the law firm she invested in hired Kuan who received MOP35,000 as her monthly base salary. Participation in cases was to generate a maximum of 20% in commission for Kuan.

Kuan later said the partnership ended for several reasons after three years.

It was also disclosed that Kuan would help collect items or money held in custody as requested by her clients. Noting that others were present when money or other items were transferred, Kuan said all belongings were returned to her clients and that no cash had been passed to Choi.

The court has agreed that the Judiciary Police should verify the signatures on the receipts collected as exhibits because the prosecution doubts their authenticity, but results must be returned to the court within a month.

Furthermore, seven prosecutors have been subpoenaed to testify in court, with five actually appearing. Prosecutor-coordinator Lai U Hou opted for written testimony due to his role in the Prosecutor Committee. Prosecutor-coordinator Tam I Kuan exercised her right to remain silent as she is Kong’s legal spouse.

The prosecution showed exhibits that pointed to Kong’s informal viewing of case documents handled by other prosecutors.

Prosecutor Wu Hio remembered Kong’s assistant had “borrowed” case documents from him without giving reasons or the dates by which the documents would be returned. He accepted the request because Kong, being assistant prosecutor-general, was authorized to see the documents.

When asked about Kong’s repeatedly borrowing of the same case documents, Wu said he normally did not interfere after Kong’s first borrowing of a document.

He also said the formalities governing the borrowing of case documents were only introduced later. At first, such practices were not required to be logged.

Wu also said he did not think much about a case being archived after Kong’s accessing the documents three times, but wondered why Kong needed to take them so often.

Prosecutor Leong Man Ieng said she did not remember calls between Kong, assistant prosecutor-general Cheng Lap Fok, Prosecutor Lai U Hou and herself before a court hearing connected to this case.

The past hearing involved a common friend of Choi and Kong. The prosecution said that after the calls, Kong – instead of Leong – appeared at the hearing as the prosecution.

Prosecutors Lai and Leong are married.

Leong said she had covered for Cheng during the latter having a leg injury. When questioned by the court about why she remembered covering for Cheng but not the sudden swap of prosecutor for a hearing, she said she thought it was a special arrangement decided at upper levels.

Another testifying prosecutor, Lao Oi Si, said Kong once asked why she was unwilling to give access to a case document, when the former requested it over the phone.

Prosecutor Mui Cheng Fei, testified that Kong had once instructed her to add a charge of computer forgery against a suspect in a POS machine scam. She put scam as the lead charge because she found evidence for computer forgery was not strong enough.