An officer at the Public Prosecutions Office (MP) has described in court senior prosecutor Kong Chi’s mode of case distribution as an exception.
The court hearing for Kong’s alleged corruption continued and several MP officers have testified before judges.
It was said that in 2014, Kong had allocated a document forgery case involving his friend, Liu Haigui, to himself. The case was archived – meaning that charges were dropped – on the same day.
It was also disclosed that when the case arrived at the MP, three prosecutors were on duty, with two of them being Kong and his wife Tam I Kuan, according to local media All About Macau.
An officer surnamed Wong, who has worked at the Central Division of the MP, testified that Kong had a couple of times distributed cases in person instead of via the computer system. Kong did not offer any explanation but the officer did not consider it problematic either, as Kong is authorized to do so.
At the MP, cases are either allocated in person or by the computer system. Computer allocation is conducted randomly. Whenever the former mode takes place, corresponding records must be made, denoting which prosecutor has made the decision.
The same officer also disclosed that between 1998 and 2016, Kong had requested five or six times to view documentation of cases handled by other prosecutors. The same request had been made by other officers as well, however, the frequency of such requests by other prosecutors was much lower than Kong’s.
Another officer surnamed Lei working at the Division, testified that Kong normally made the request to view the documentation in person, but could not remember if Kong had made similar requests by phone.
Lei been surprised at Kong allocating a case to himself but considered this an exception. Not distributing via digital means was also an exception.
At that time, Lei did not question the decision.
An MP administrative staff member surnamed Chang explained that under normal circumstances, items under custody are released after notification is issued to concerned members of the public. Should retrieval of their items be requested without prior notification, permission from the concerned prosecutors would be sought before release. The staff added that Kong would need to be notified about the release of any items valued over MOP50,000.
Another MP staff member, surnamed Chui, disclosed that she works as coordinating secretary at the MP. She had to draft indictments or notices for archive of cases handled by Kong. She would view details of the cases before drafting the documents. Kong would later edit her drafts.
A judge asked if the work was difficult, to which Chui said drafts for simpler cases would see fewer edited or polished parts. For more complex cases, the opposite would happen. The same judge questioned if Chui somehow considered herself a prosecutor and if Kong was not too occupied by work. Chui only said she “worked as per orders.”
Another staff member surnamed Chan, remembered that a belt under custody appeared different from the original item, but nobody undertook any official identification. When it was returned to a case stakeholder, Kong reminded Chan to make it clear that the belt and the diamonds on the buckle must not circulate in the market.
However, the prosecution asserted that an official identification had actually taken place, and questioned the reliability of Chan’s testimony on the grounds of unreliable memory. To this, Chan explained that the identification had been requested by the Macao Customs.
No Comments