The high-profile trial of disgraced Chinese leader Bo Xilai continued for the third day today as prosecutors presented more evidence to prove charges of bribery, embezzlement and abuse of power against him.

Wang Zhenggang, the then director of the Dalian municipal bureau of urban and rural planning and land, continued to give testimony at the Intermediate Court in Jinan city in Shandong province against Bo, who in the past headed the Dalian city.

The 64-year-old fallen politician was sacked as the head of the Chongqing city last year and removed from the party following allegations against him.

Prosecutors accused Bo of accepting bribes worth about $4 million from businessmen Tang Xiaolin and Xu Ming and embezzlement of funds from the Dalian municipal government.

He was also accused of abusing power when dealing with the murder case of British businessman Neil Heywood and his associate Wang Lijun’s defection in 2012. Bo’s wife Gu Kailai was an accused in the murder case. She is currently in prison after receiving a suspended death sentence.

Bo denied the bribery and embezzlement charges during the two days of trial. Despite the week-end, the trial went on to maintain continuity as agreed by all parties.

One the second day of the trial yesterday, prosecutors piled up evidence against him, including a video confession of Gu acknowledging the purchase of a luxury villa in France.

Video and audio evidence shown in court indicated that Xu Ming provided funds for Bogu Kailai to buy a villa in France worth over €2.32 million and that Bo was aware of this.

Bo defended that the evidence was irrelevant, saying that he had only a vague impression of amounts and no one had told him exactly how much money was spent.

His lawyers expressed views on the truth of witnesses’ testimonies and the legality of the documentary evidence.

Prosecutor responded directly, pointing out that the defendant had expressed numerous conflicting views on key facts during his defence.

Prosecutors said that the evidence presented in court was taken legally from clear sources and should be examined comprehensively in the context of the entire case.

Related Topics