Ex-CUHK Medical Centre supervisor bailed until January hearing
On.cc · 2 SOURCESabout 3 hours ago6 MIN
Summary
A former supervisor and consultant physiotherapist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong Medical Centre’s Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation Centre, Lau Man-cheong (劉敏昌), and former human resources director Tang Lai-ting (鄧麗婷) appeared again at Sha Tin Magistrates’ Courts on September 30 over seven charges including fraud and disclosure of the identity of a person under investigation. The prosecution applied to adjourn the case to January 6, 2027, saying it needed legal advice and more time to complete its investigation, and the court granted the request. Both defendants were allowed to remain on bail, with Sing Tao reporting bail of HK$400,000 for Lau and HK$20,000 for Tang. The allegations centre on claims that Lau falsely said he had personally provided professional services to patients over about four years and later tried to interfere with an ICAC investigation.
Key Points
- Lau, 65, was the then head of the rehabilitation centre and a consultant physiotherapist at CUHK Medical Centre, while Tang, 51, was the then human resources director.
- Lau faces six charges: one count of fraud, one count of disclosing the identity of a person under investigation, and four counts of perverting the course of justice.
- Prosecutors allege that between July 2021 and September 2025, Lau falsely claimed he had personally provided consultations and treatment at the hospital or designated facilities to obtain professional service fees.
- One charge says Lau unlawfully told two rehabilitation centre administrative staff, Wan Chi-kwan and Tang Chum-ming, on August 27, 2025 that he was an ICAC investigation target
- The perverting-the-course allegations say Lau instructed staff to mislead ICAC, refuse interview requests, and delete WhatsApp messages about the ICAC probe involving Chong Chun-wing and Lee Wing-yin
Why It Matters
The case concerns alleged misconduct inside a private hospital setting, where billing for professional services and staff cooperation with corruption investigations are both matters of public confidence. For Hong Kong readers, the proceedings also show that alleged disclosure of an ICAC target’s identity and alleged interference with evidence can lead to separate criminal charges beyond the underlying fraud accusation.