Duo charged by ICAC guilty of fraud over $23m hotel redevelopment project
2022-4-26
A director of a consultancy firm and a director of an engineering company, charged by the ICAC, were convicted at the District Court today (April 26) of conspiracy to defraud by inducing a project developer to award to the duo’s companies a plumbing and drainage installation contract of a hotel redevelopment project in Mongkok worth over $23 million.
Wong Wing-chau, 67, director of Saneseed Limited (Saneseed); and Ma Sau-kam, 60, director of Panocean Engineering Limited (Panocean), were found guilty of a joint charge of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to Common Law.
Deputy Judge Ms Katherine Lo Kit-yee adjourned the case to June 1 for sentence. The defendants were remanded in the custody of the Correctional Services Department.
The court heard that at the material time, Wong was the sole director and shareholder of Saneseed, an electrical and mechanical consultant. Wong’s son and Ma were both directors and shareholders of Panocean, an engineering company. Meanwhile, Ma was also an employee of Gloryfield Engineering Limited (Gloryfield), another company of Wong which shared Saneseed’s office.
Champion Success Limited (Champion) was the project developer of a hotel redevelopment project in Mongkok. In March 2011, Champion named Saneseed as an electrical and mechanical consultant of the project to provide consultancy service covering fire services installation, electrical installation, mechanical ventilation and air conditioning installation, as well as plumbing and drainage installation (the four areas).
Saneseed was required to assist Champion in drawing up a tender list for the four areas and choosing a suitable contractor. Saneseed would also supervise and monitor the relevant works conducted.
Panocean was one of the contractors recommended by Wong to submit tenders for the works on the four areas. The total bidding price quoted by Panocean, which amounted to over $103 million, was above the lowest three bids. But Champion still considered Panocean’s bid and invited it to attend the relevant tender interviews as Wong highly recommended Panocean.
Upon the arrangement by the defendants, two “managers” of Panocean attended the tender interviews hosted by Wong and representatives of Champion. Champion subsequently awarded the plumbing and drainage installation contract to Panocean at over $23 million in August 2014.
After obtaining the plumbing and drainage installation contract, Panocean subcontracted the relevant works to other companies without the permission of Champion.
The court heard that Wong had never declared to Champion that his son was a director of Panocean nor had he declared to Champion his own interests in and relationship with Panocean. Wong had also induced Champion to award the contract to Panocean by fraudulent means. Should Champion know Wong’s interests in and relationship with Panocean, it would not have invited Panocean to submit tenders or awarded the contract to Panocean.
ICAC inquires revealed that Panocean had no employee. An employee of Gloryfield and a business partner of Wong attended the above tender interviews as “managers” of Panocean. All tendering documents of Panocean were prepared and submitted to Champion by Ma upon Wong’s instructions.
The case arose from a corruption complaint. Subsequent ICAC enquiries revealed the above offence. Champion had rendered full assistance to the ICAC during its investigation.
The prosecution was today represented by prosecuting counsel Susanna Ku, assisted by ICAC officer Billy Cheng.
Wong Wing-chau, 67, director of Saneseed Limited (Saneseed); and Ma Sau-kam, 60, director of Panocean Engineering Limited (Panocean), were found guilty of a joint charge of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to Common Law.
Deputy Judge Ms Katherine Lo Kit-yee adjourned the case to June 1 for sentence. The defendants were remanded in the custody of the Correctional Services Department.
The court heard that at the material time, Wong was the sole director and shareholder of Saneseed, an electrical and mechanical consultant. Wong’s son and Ma were both directors and shareholders of Panocean, an engineering company. Meanwhile, Ma was also an employee of Gloryfield Engineering Limited (Gloryfield), another company of Wong which shared Saneseed’s office.
Champion Success Limited (Champion) was the project developer of a hotel redevelopment project in Mongkok. In March 2011, Champion named Saneseed as an electrical and mechanical consultant of the project to provide consultancy service covering fire services installation, electrical installation, mechanical ventilation and air conditioning installation, as well as plumbing and drainage installation (the four areas).
Saneseed was required to assist Champion in drawing up a tender list for the four areas and choosing a suitable contractor. Saneseed would also supervise and monitor the relevant works conducted.
Panocean was one of the contractors recommended by Wong to submit tenders for the works on the four areas. The total bidding price quoted by Panocean, which amounted to over $103 million, was above the lowest three bids. But Champion still considered Panocean’s bid and invited it to attend the relevant tender interviews as Wong highly recommended Panocean.
Upon the arrangement by the defendants, two “managers” of Panocean attended the tender interviews hosted by Wong and representatives of Champion. Champion subsequently awarded the plumbing and drainage installation contract to Panocean at over $23 million in August 2014.
After obtaining the plumbing and drainage installation contract, Panocean subcontracted the relevant works to other companies without the permission of Champion.
The court heard that Wong had never declared to Champion that his son was a director of Panocean nor had he declared to Champion his own interests in and relationship with Panocean. Wong had also induced Champion to award the contract to Panocean by fraudulent means. Should Champion know Wong’s interests in and relationship with Panocean, it would not have invited Panocean to submit tenders or awarded the contract to Panocean.
ICAC inquires revealed that Panocean had no employee. An employee of Gloryfield and a business partner of Wong attended the above tender interviews as “managers” of Panocean. All tendering documents of Panocean were prepared and submitted to Champion by Ma upon Wong’s instructions.
The case arose from a corruption complaint. Subsequent ICAC enquiries revealed the above offence. Champion had rendered full assistance to the ICAC during its investigation.
The prosecution was today represented by prosecuting counsel Susanna Ku, assisted by ICAC officer Billy Cheng.