These include 23 counts of passive corruption for illicit acts and 56 counts of misconduct. The majority of these charges are alleged to have been committed in collaboration with lawyer Ho Kam Meng, who is also on trial for the first time, newspaper Hoje Macau reported.
At the start of the trial, Ho Kam Meng’s defense attorney, Lau Io Keong, challenged the legality of Deputy Prosecutor Kuok Un Man’s participation, arguing that her prior involvement in the investigative phase should disqualify her. However, Judge Choi Mou Pan dismissed the objection, stating that disqualification only applies in cases of conflict of interest or familial ties, which were not present in this case.
He added that the Public Prosecution Office has the authority to appoint its representatives. Nonetheless, he allowed the defense to submit the objection in writing for further review by a panel of five judges.
The charges against Kong Chi include 10 corruption offenses committed jointly with Ho Kam Meng, two with both Ho and businesswoman Choi Sai Ieng, three with Choi and lawyer Kuan Hoi Lon, and eight with Choi alone. Each of these offenses carries a potential prison sentence of up to eight years. Additionally, Kong faces 56 counts of misconduct, all allegedly committed with Ho Kam Meng, each punishable by up to five years in prison.
Ho Kam Meng is also charged with forming or participating in a secret criminal association, a crime that could result in up to 12 years in prison. This association allegedly included Kong Chi and Choi Sai Ieng, both of whom were convicted of this offense in a previous trial. Ho faces a total of 68 charges, including 12 counts of passive corruption and 56 of misconduct.
Choi Sai Ieng is charged with 13 counts of passive corruption, involving various combinations of co-defendants. Kuan Hoi Lon, who did not appear in court and is currently unaccounted for, is accused of three corruption offenses committed jointly with Kong and Choi.
The indictment reveals that the defendants allegedly exploited Kong Chi’s position to sell favorable outcomes during Public Prosecution investigations. In many cases, Ho Kam Meng collected payments from clients—up to MOP 500,000—and passed on a 10% commission to Kong. In return, Kong is said to have orchestrated favorable decisions, such as case dismissals, lifting of coercive measures, or return of seized assets. Similar methods were reportedly used by Choi and Kuan.
The cases in which Kong allegedly intervened varied widely, covering investigations into fraud, illegal employment, drug use, theft, and gambling-related usury. Payments were often made during meals or trips to mainland China.
This is not Kong Chi’s first conviction. In a previous trial concluded in February 2025, he was sentenced to 21 years in prison for leading a secret association, committing passive corruption, breaching judicial secrecy, misconduct, abuse of power, and providing false information. In that same trial, Choi Sai Ieng received a 16-year sentence for similar crimes, while Kuan Hoi Lon was acquitted. Ho Kam Meng, however, is being tried for the first time in this second proceeding.
