bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

Cliff Buddle

Former top stockbroker Arthur Lai Cheuk-kwan yesterday fought back in court against allegations that he has stashed away assets while seeking public funding for his defence on fraud charges.

 Clive Grossman, SC, for Lai, told the judge his client had nothing to hide and had always been keen to deal with any concerns raised by the Legal Aid Department.

 Mr Grossman called the department's behaviour ridiculous and accused it of taking bureacracy to the limit.

 Lai is challenging a decision to refuse him legal aid for a long and complex fraud trial due to start next year.

 He and a fellow defendant, Peter Mou Chi-luen, have launched a judicial review in the hope that the refusal to grant them public funding will be overturned.

 Mr Grossman said the department kept accusing Lai of not providing enough information, but refused to tell him what it wanted.

 'We are most anxious to dispel these misgivings and concerns. What more can he do?' he asked.

 Lai's position was: 'If there are things on your mind, tell me and I will explain them to you. I have nothing to hide.'  He had been offered legal aid in January on condition he contributed $2,153,611, the Court of First Instance heard.

 But Mr Grossman said Lai could not afford to pay and the offer lapsed. He told Mr Justice James Findlay that despite Legal Aid Department suspicions, 'my client does not have any money'.

 A judge who had presided over preliminary hearings in Lai's criminal trial had been horrified at the prospect of defendants facing the highly complex issues without lawyers, the court heard.

 Jerome Matthews, for Mou, made similar complaints about the way the Legal Aid Department had handled his client's case.

 Raymond Faulkner, SC, for the Legal Aid Department, argued both men had been given ample opportunity to comply with requests for further information.

 Lai and Mou, along with three others, face fraud and corruption charges over a 1990 takeover deal of Bond Corporation International by Tomson Pacific. The case continues next week.



Stockbroker denies hiding cash to win legal aid for fraud case