prosecutor explains second defendant’s link in archived cases as coincidence

Assistant prosecutor general Kong Chi said it was a coincidence that he had contacted second defendant Choi Sao Ieng before and after he archived some cases, local media has reported.

Concerning a criminal case in 2012, Kong told the court he had lawfully retrieved HKD100,000 in custody for witness Wong Kuong Fei and accused Wong of making ungrounded accusations that Kong took bribes.

There were two cases concerning Lei Sio Kun in early 2013, the accused in a 2012 case. Kong, who was not handling the cases, was said to have passed information about the cases to Wong so that the latter could seek reconciliation with Lei. Both cases were ultimately archived.

Stating he could not remember if he had viewed documentation on the two latter cases, Kong wondered why the documents that ended up at the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) were in Wong’s possession in the first place. He admitted to suggesting Wong seek reconciliation.

It was revealed that in 2014, Kong had archived a case about the use of forged documents to acquire a Macau ID. The four defendants were said to have requested HKD300,000 from the accused.

The prosecution said Kong’s bank account had received MOP75,000 in two instalments after archiving the Macau ID case. In reply, Kong explained the fund movements by saying he had regularly contacted Choi about currency exchange. He said it was coincidence that the time of archive matched that of the bank deposit.

For another sham marriage case handled by Kong in 2014, the four defendants were said to have requested MOP50,000 as graft. Based on the then text messages between Kong and Choi shown on court, the prosecution asked Kong what exactly he was requested to resolve. In response, Kong said it might have been related to hiring a lawyer.

In the same year, two people from Jiangxi Province were accused of offering a ride to illegal entrants. The vehicle was retained under custody. Kong handled the case and ultimately archived it. On this, Kong said he had not passed paper strips with Choi’s phone number to the suspects, nor was he clear if they had contacts.

Once again, conversation transcripts were shown in court. It was alleged Kong had asked Choi if “it was received.” The presiding judge asked Kong to explain what “received” meant, and Kong said he meant if the case had been taken and if a lawyer had been appointed. He said the fact that the time of archive matched that of the conversation was a mere coincidence.

The CCAC found several documents in Kong’s office noting people, the handling prosecutors, the amount in custody and the case number, among other details. He said he did not write all these documents, and that “every now and then” he would receive requests from people – not only Choi.

The indictment noted Choi had rented an office between September 2012 and February 2016 and had offered it to Kong without remuneration to use as the registered address for two Hunan associations.

Kong said he was told by Choi that she administered the premises. He said he was unaware of that until receiving the indictment.

On this ground, the prosecution doubted that using an apartment for free can already be considered a type of advantage. Kong replied it had nothing to do with his cases, and that he did not consider it a benefit arising from the commission of crimes.

In March 2014, a case Kong handled and archived involved a person, Wu Kuok Leong, accused of swindling. It has been alleged Kong and the other defendants had requested HKD76,000 from Wu.

At the time of the retrieval of funds under custody, Kong and Choi had several phone conversations, while the fourth defendant, Kuan Hoi Lon, collected the funds under custody for Wu, which equated to HKD76,000.

Kong was asked why Kuan knew the money was available for collection, and said that everything was conducted as per due procedures.

He also said he had not leaked any secrets to external case stakeholders.