According to former Prosecutor-general Ho Chio Meng, his trip to Dubai in 2009 with former consultant and defendant Wang Xiandi, was part of a preparatory visit for an international Prosecutor’s conference scheduled to happen 10 months later in the same country.
The former top official is accused of having used funds from the Prosecutor’s Office (MP) to finance a MOP132,510 (US$16,582) three-day trip to Dubai, a visit that included expenses for two-first class tickets, a stay in the 5-star hotel Palm Jumeirah, a barbecue and visits to local attractions.
During the trip, the former top official was accompanied by Ms. Wang, who was hired by Ho and worked as a judicial assistant at the Prosecutor’s Office until 2014, although it is alleged that during this time she did not provide any actual services yet received MOP4.2 million in benefits.
As the corruption trial of the former prosecutor-general continued in the Court of Final Appeal last Friday, the court heard the statements from Ms. Man, Chief of the Personnel and Finance Department of the MP between 2001 and 2010.
Out and about
When questioned by the Assistant Prosecutor as to why her department had approved expenses for a preparatory trip that included only recreational activities and not training activities, Ms. Man only stated that the expenses were presented by the Prosecutor’s Office’s Integrated Management Team (IMT) as an official visit, without official and personal expenses being differentiated.
The trip plans and details were prepared by a travel agency operated by two defendants in the case, surnamed Wong and Mak, one of the alleged front companies said to have received diverse public contracts during the former prosecutor-general’s tenure.
“We never had any superior officers go first to prepare official visits. I never remember that happening normally,” said Ms. Man.
The court was shown the proposal for the trip handed in by the former chief of the IMT, surnamed Chan, a document with the entire trip described in one sentence – as an ‘official’ trip – something Ms. Man said was justified for “confidentiality reasons”.
Like several witnesses from the Personnel and Finance Department in the trial so far, Ms. Ma said security and urgency were the reasons usually given by the IMT for supplying summarised travel expenses, with names and destinations blacked out for official visits by the Prosecutor’s Office.
Normal practice
The former Chief of the Personnel and Finance Department also confirmed that under Mr. Ho’s management, she “didn’t remember having any public tenders” for service contracts awarded by the Prosecutor’s Office, with most of the contracts being granted to the same companies.
However, Ms. Man supported the defence’s argument that the practice was legitimate in some situations, saying the practice continued after current Prosecutor-general Ip Son Sang took charge in December of 2014.
Currently working as an assessor for the Prosecutor’s Office, Ms. Man said that apart from contracts for repair works for the new Prosecutor’s Office installations, most service and purchase contracts continued to be awarded directly or by invitation.
The assessor to Ip Son Sang said that on some occasions, security was still used as a reason for not opening public tenders for contracts worth over MOP750,000, and that dividing contracts so as not to not exceed the limit was also accepted – practices that Mr. Ho has frequently been accused of being involved in.
However Ms. Man stated that during the former top official’s management tenure, irregularities such as incomplete travel receipts and rejections of cheaper contract proposals were common, something she said that even led to arguments between the former deputy director of the Prosecutor’s Office and the former chief of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, who is also a defendant in the case.
Welcoming guests
The court also heard the testimony of a former assistant in the Judiciary Assistance Department, and sister of one of the defendants and employee at Wong Kuok Wai companies, surnamed Lam.
Due to the involvement of her brother in the trial, Ms. Lam was given the choice not to provide statements on the issue – something she declined, leading the prosecution to suggest her statements were prepared beforehand.
Mr. Ho is accused of hiring relatives and friends of his alleged associates, with Ms. Lam saying she only realised her brother worked at the Prosecutor’s Office after she started working there, and denying she had any knowledge that her brother worked with the travel agency that prepared a trip she took to Beijing.
The prosecution presented receipts for an official trip to Beijing in 2013, with a MOP16,000 single ticket paid by the MP, while other receipts from the travel agency showed Ms. Lam had also taken her two children with her.
The former MP employee said she had paid for the tickets for her children directly to the travel agency, while denying having had any contact with her brother. When questioned by Judge Lai as to why she took her children on an official visit, Ms Lam stated that it was common practice by employees.
Ms. Lam also confirmed the defence’s argument that several guests and visitors from Mainland China had been received at the resting room on the 16th floor of the Hotline Building and at a residence in Cheoc Van, both spaces rented by the MP.
The prosecution is arguing that during Mr. Ho’s tenure, the two properties were used for his personal use, under the false pretences of being used for receiving guests from the Prosecutor’s Office.
The trial will continue tomorrow.
