Kong Chi defended himself against accusations of manipulating the procedures and results of criminal investigations through his official position. At issue was the way he handled seizures, archived cases, helped suspects or people involved to escape crimes, accepting bribes. Kong Chi admitted that he worked in a “gray area” but insisted that he never intended to break the law.
Destruction of seized goods
The presiding judge and associate judge challenged Kong Chi’s handling of a counterfeit goods case. Kong Chi argued that the Customs Service had failed to gather the relevant people to take the oath two years after the seizure was found to be counterfeit, and therefore shelved the case.
He stated that he did not want to “put the blame on the Customs Service”, so he ordered the destruction of the counterfeit goods that had been seized. Tong Hio Fong disputed the fact that Kong Chi filed another crime of aggravated robbery without a clear qualification of the case.
60 thousand dollars to help with immigration
Kong Chi was also accused of accepting money to assist with investment immigration matters. Kong Chi claimed to have received MOP60,000 from a woman who had adopted a child to help her deal with residency issues. However, the woman later claimed that someone from IPIM had helped her, so Kong Chi returned the money in full. Chan Kuong Seng asked Kong Chi why he hadn’t reported the case to the Commissioner Against Corruption (CCAC) when he learned that someone from IPIM was accepting bribes. Kong Chi explained that at the time, he was not fully aware of the real situation.
Dissimulation of interests
Furthermore, the court also questioned Kong Chi’s professional conduct and the concealment of information related to his assets. The case’s initial petition also mentioned that the prosecutor had access to files belonging to other colleagues. Kong Chi argued that he had the right to access the files of some prosecutors and that he had consent to do so, stating that the real situation “was not as described in the initial petition”.
Chan Kuong Seng then asked why Kong Chi, as deputy prosecutor, had time to do research and publish books, and Kong Chi explained that it was his hobby. He said that he had promised to write a report on new immigrants coming to Macau to get married and stated that the report referred to the item registered as “marriage” in the “Subscription Register of Hunan-Macau Mutual Fund”, which involved a remuneration of 20,000 patacas. He further explained that the other amount of 300,000 patacas that appeared in the register were royalties from the publication of “People and Events in Casinos”, but that he did not finish it because he was busy with his work. He also said that he did not think he had to declare his personal debts and that he had no intention of hiding them.
The process revealed that the CCAC found an electronic file titled “Subscription Record of Hunan-Macau Mutual Fund” on Kong Chi’s office computer, which was considered to be records of his ill-gotten gains, involving a total amount of more than 5.8 million patacas in the period from February 16, 2011 to February 6, 2015.
Kong Chi claimed that the electronic file was a memorandum for the organization of a countrymen’s association and a Hunan-Macao Cultural Fund.
“Grey area”
Kong Chi had testified on behalf of Lau Hoi Kwai, the “godson” of the second defendant, businesswoman Choi Sao Ieng, in a case of suspected drug abuse. Tong Hio Fong questioned the fact that Kong Chi did not obtain the attorney general’s consent before testifying, which constitutes a violation of professional ethics. Kong Chi stated that he only wanted to help his client in a legal way and that he hoped he would perform better in court. He admitted the existence of a procedural problem in his behavior, but stressed that he was not to blame: “It was just a small maneuver in a gray area”.
Note with bribery implications found
At Wednesday’s trial, the prosecution representatives questioned Kong Chi about the notes found in his office that were suspected to refer to bribes, including the names of the people, “how much money was deducted”, the case number, etc.
Kong Chi argued that his position attracted many questions and that many people questioned whether there was anything “that could be done” regarding a process. He found it unsurprising that there were notes in his office, including those from his good friends. He said he would be careful and denied taking bribes.
