Engineering company director charged by ICAC jailed for 39 months over $23m hotel development project fraud
2022-6-1
A director of an engineering company, charged by the ICAC, was today (June 1) sentenced to 39 months’ imprisonment at the District Court for conspiring with a director of a consultancy firm to deceive a project developer into awarding a plumbing and drainage installation contract of a hotel development project worth $23 million to the engineering company.
Ma Sau-kam, 60, director of Panocean Engineering Limited (Panocean), was earlier found guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to Common Law.
In sentencing, Deputy Judge Ms Katherine Lo Kit-yee said she took a starting point of 48 months’ imprisonment in view of the breach of trust and the monetary amount involved in this case. Having considered the mitigating factors, the defendant’s jail term was reduced to 39 months.
The court heard that at the material time, co-defendant Wong Wing-chau was the sole director and shareholder of Saneseed Limited (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 works areas).
Saneseed was required to assist Champion in drawing up a tender list for the four works 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 not among 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 Wong and Ma, 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 another company 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.
In late April, Wong and Ma were jointly found guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud. The court was informed today that Wong passed away in mid-May. The case was adjourned to August 5 to deal with matters relating to Wong’s sentence.
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.
Ma Sau-kam, 60, director of Panocean Engineering Limited (Panocean), was earlier found guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to Common Law.
In sentencing, Deputy Judge Ms Katherine Lo Kit-yee said she took a starting point of 48 months’ imprisonment in view of the breach of trust and the monetary amount involved in this case. Having considered the mitigating factors, the defendant’s jail term was reduced to 39 months.
The court heard that at the material time, co-defendant Wong Wing-chau was the sole director and shareholder of Saneseed Limited (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 works areas).
Saneseed was required to assist Champion in drawing up a tender list for the four works 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 not among 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 Wong and Ma, 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 another company 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.
In late April, Wong and Ma were jointly found guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud. The court was informed today that Wong passed away in mid-May. The case was adjourned to August 5 to deal with matters relating to Wong’s sentence.
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.