Married ex-Hong Kong official appeals against misconduct conviction over property payment from businesswoman, who was also his lover

Wilson Fung was jailed last year for misconduct in public office after not telling the government about his dealings with Cheyenne Chan

His lawyer says trial judge was ‘plainly wrong’ to find that Fung – who handled Chan’s aviation-related applications while in office – knew of her business interests

Reading Time:3 minutes

Former civil servant Wilson Fung is appealing against his misconduct investigation. Photo: K. Y. Cheng

Published: 9:47pm, 10 Dec 2020Updated: 9:49pm, 10 Dec 2020

A married former Hong Kong official who served nine months in prison for failing to declare a payment from his lover while he was still in government handling her business applications has returned to court to challenge his misconduct conviction.

Wilson Fung Wing-yip, 57, husband of Betty Fung Ching Suk-yee, head of the Policy Innovation and Coordination Office, was found guilty and jailed last year for misconduct in public office for keeping the government in the dark about his dealings with his then mistress, businesswoman Cheyenne Chan Ung-iok. Chan was the sister-in-law of late gaming tycoon Stanley Ho Hung-sun.

The high-profile case centred on Chan settling an initial HK$510,000 (US$65,000) deposit on a Mid-Levels flat bought by Fung in 2004, while he was deputy secretary for economic development and labour handling aviation-related applications from her companies, Helicopters Hong Kong, HK Express and Heli Express.

In defence, Fung revealed a 13-year love affair with Chan that stole the spotlight but said he did not know she was a shareholder or director to those companies. On introspect, he conceded there was a potential conflict of interest, which he did not declare to the government.

The District Court found the payment could simply be part of property dealings between lovers and acquitted the pair of bribery charges, but ruled that Fung was guilty of misconduct by failing to declare an obvious conflict of interest.

On Thursday, defence counsel Joseph Tse Wah-yuen SC argued at the Court of Appeal that the trial judge was “plainly wrong” in finding that Fung must have known about Chan’s business identity when he accepted the payment for buying the apartment in September 2004.

Tse also argued that mere acceptance of benefit and the subsequent non-disclosure were not enough to establish misconduct, as prosecutors must also prove impropriety not involving corruption, given its failure to prove bribery.

“Why was it improper for the appellant to accept this HK$510,000?” he continued. “The prosecution has to explain it and they didn’t.”