Judge ‘did not see sufficient evidence to acquit TVB manager accused of taking HK$112,000 bribe’, Hong Kong court hears
Judge in lower court relied on ex-TVB executive Stephen Chan's 'subjective' claim bosses would not mind him taking outside cash, appeal told
A judge erred in clearing a former TVB general manager of bribery as the court was not presented with evidence that the defendant would have been allowed to keep a payment from a shopping mall for hosting his show there, an appeal hearing heard yesterday.
Stephen Chan Chi-wan and his assistant, Edthancy Tseng Pei-kun, have twice been cleared of three bribery charges after a District Court judge accepted Chan's argument he did not need to declare the payment to his employer. But Eric Kwok Tung-ming SC, for the Department of Justice, told the Court of Appeal it was only Chan's "subjective" view TVB would not have refused him permission to take the payment.
The case centres on an episode of Chan's talk show , which took place at Olympian City, a shopping mall in Tai Kok Tsui, on New Year's Eve 2009. Though the show was produced and broadcast by TVB, the mall paid Chan HK$112,000 through a company run by Tseng. Prior to that, Chan had hosted 159 episodes unpaid.
"Chan had never asked for permission and there is no evidence to show he could hold such a belief," Kwok said as he argued that Mr Justice Poon Siu-tung erred in acquitting Chan, 55, and Tseng, 32, and asked the panel of three judges to convict them.
But Joseph Tse Wah-yuen SC, for Chan, said his client made no attempt to hide the fact he was accepting the money. Chan was an artiste, as well as a boss, and TVB had allowed him to receive payment for work in that field.
Madam Justice Maria Yuen Ka-ning questioned whether a company would help an employee make extra money. "It is the company's production and [the employee] pockets money from it," she said.
Court of Appeal vice-president Mr Justice Wally Yeung Chun-kuen asked why the trial judge had found it would do no harm but good to TVB. "Will a public company allow its employees to receive money [from a third party]? It would damage the company's reputation."
Yeung said the appeals court had ruled that - contrary to the lower court's finding - the programme was related to TVB's business. He found it strange that the trial judge, Poon, had not yet explained his reasoning to the appeal court, despite being asked twice to do so.
Tse told the court Chan had informed his employer of a HK$50,000 payment relating to another programme in April 2009, and obtained permission. He believed, therefore, that the company would approve this time as well.
Chan, now with Commercial Radio, and Tseng first faced trial in 2011, when Poon found they had no case to answer. The following year, the Court of Appeal ruled Poon erred in law.
Poon stuck by his decision in 2013, ruling Chan had a "reasonable excuse". The prosecution is now appealing again.
