All in the family

A witness in the trial of former Prosecutor-general Ho Chio Meng confirmed on Friday that several companies were run out of an office located on the 16th floor of the Public Prosecu-tions Office by relatives of the former top official and other defendants in the case.
As the corruption case of the former official continued on Friday, the Court of Final Appeal heard from a witness surnamed Chu, who stated that she was hired by Mr. Ho’s older brother in 2004 to work as an administrative employee, preparing documentation and receipts for contracts made with the Public Prosecutions Office until 2007.
The former prosecutor-general is accused of indirectly profiting from almost 1,300 contracts granted by the Public Prosecutions Office to front companies run by his relatives and alleged business associates.
Ms. Chu said that Ho’s brother-in-law was responsible for accounting and service contracts with durations of less than six months, and that his brother and two other defendants in the case would also appear regularly on the 16th floor to deliver orders for quotations and re-ceipts.
She confirmed that at least nine of the ten alleged front companies operated from an office on the 16th floor, but that since all the defendants would sometimes give her orders, she couldn’t specify if any of them was the main person responsible.
Ms. Chu confirmed that the Public Prosecutions Office was the only client for all the compa-nies, and that she would be asked to create budgets and proposals for different maintenance or purchase contract proposals with increased prices.
She said she couldn’t confirm if the services had actually been provided by the defendants, but confirmed she was asked to prepare proposals based on receipts that seemed to be from oth-er companies.
The prices demanded of the Public Prosecutions Office would be increased from between 3 per cent and 50 per cent, from the original expenses provided to her by the other defendants. There were even certain rules for increasing prices depending on the type of contract, with public relations contracts being increased between 8 and 10 per cent, small material purchase contracts increased by 8 per cent and construction and repair works between 20 and 30 per cent.
The witness also stated that the main contact within the Prosecutor’s Office was the former head of the Integrated Management Team (IMT) and also a defendant in the case, Chan Ka Fai, who would also request on certain occasions that prices be increased for budget proposals to the office.

I take your word for it

The court also heard from Roque Lok Kei Chan, the brother of former Secretary for Admin-istration and Justice Florinda Chan, who worked as an employee of the Public Prosecutions Office from 1999.
Mr. Chan worked for the IMT and was in charge of maintenance and verifying and inspecting services provided to the office, however he confirmed that on many occasions he would ap-prove the payment for several services without personally checking to see if they had indeed been provided.
According to Mr. Chan, a man surnamed Wong – one of the case’s defendants – would be con-tacted for all service and construction contracts, and he would “take his word” and that of his colleagues, that the services had been provided.
The contracts would all be awarded directly and without public tender, with contracts being handed to the same companies almost automatically, he added.
“I would call my colleagues to ask if the works were concluded and they would present me the receipts to sign. We were told by our superiors this was the way it should be done,” Mr. Chan said. The witness also said that he refused to sign confirmation papers handed over by his su-perior for materials and services that weren’t provided, and that after he complained to his superior that some expenses for works provided by Mr. Wong were “too high”, confirmation slips for expenses handed to him stopped including prices. After he refused to sign the pay-ment confirmations, his superior started handing them to his colleagues instead.
Mr. Chan also confirmed that Mr. Ho’s brother-in-law would pick up proposals for services and materials in the Public Prosecutions Office, and identified him as someone who worked in Mr. Wong’s companies.

Late night massages

The court also heard from a former security guard, in charge of overseeing the 16th floor of the Hotline Building at night, who confirmed having seen Mr. Ho enter the area after hours on at least two occasions, accompanied by his driver and in one instance, an unidentified man. When the security guard questioned the driver on the identity of man, the driver responded that it was a massage professional.
The statement appears to confirm the accusations that the former prosecutor-general in-stalled a massage room on the floor rented by the Public Prosecutions Office, for his personal use. After the trial session ended, Mr. Ho denied receiving any massages on the 16th floor and said the statement must have been the result of a “miscommunication problem” between the guard and the driver.