The Primary Court of the Court of First Instance delivered on Friday (6 November) its judgment in the criminal proceedings involving a Macao resident named Au Kam San, who faced charges of having committed crimes endangering national security.
The Public Prosecutions Office filed charges, on grounds of offences against national security, against the defendant on 27 March 2026. Following the indictment, the defendant submitted a pre-trial application. After a supplementary investigation and a pre-trial hearing, the pre-trial judge issued a decision on 2 July, confirming and upholding the charges brought by the Public Prosecutions Office. The defendant was indicted on three counts of ‘subversion of state power’, three counts of ‘engaging in acts endangering national security in collaboration with organisations, groups or individuals outside the Macao Special Administrative Region (MSAR)’ and one count of ‘breach of secrecy’.
This is the first case involving violations of the Law on Safeguarding National Security since the establishment of the MSAR. Throughout the entire litigation process, as the defendant had not engaged a lawyer of his own choice, the Court appointed a lawyer to represent him in accordance with the law. The appointed lawyer, duly accepted and recognised by the defendant, maintained close communication and contact with the defendant to conduct the defence, while the defendant fully exercised his right of defence in accordance with the law. In addition, the Court also approved, in accordance with the law, applications submitted by the defendant’s family members to visit the defendant regularly.
The Criminal Court of the Primary Court held hearings on the case on 16 and 18 September 2026.
The Collegiate Panel, on the basis of a prudent, comprehensive and objective analysis of all evidence (including the defendant’s statements, witness testimony, seized items, communication records and the corresponding criminal investigation reports), reached its findings and established a vast majority of facts stated in the indictment. During the trial hearings, the defendant raised no objection to a majority of the facts underpinning the indictment, and admitted that the acts of colluding and conspiring with multiple overseas organisations constituted crimes. He also agreed with the defence arguments presented by his lawyer.
Regarding the part in which the defendant was indicted on charges of ‘subversion of state power’ and ‘engaging in acts endangering national security in collaboration with organisations, groups or individuals outside the MSAR’, for having illegally colluded with overseas hostile organisations and, in collusion with them, committed acts endangering national security, the facts established in the case demonstrate that the defendant Au Kam San had, for a long period, personally assisted and collaborated with overseas hostile organisations to collect, prepare, and publicly disseminate a substantial amount of images and information that were patently filled with political advocacy aimed at subverting state power, or were false and manifestly distorted. Through these illegal means of colluding with overseas hostile organisations, he conspired to incite hatred among Macao residents toward the Central People’s Government, with the intent to overthrow and undermine the fundamental state system established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. The relevant subversive acts persisted even after the Law on Safeguarding National Security was amended and came into effect in 2023. The defendant’s acts undoubtedly constitute both the crime of “subversion of state power” and the crime of “engaging in acts endangering national security in collaboration with organisations, groups or individuals outside the MSAR”. However, since an apparent concurrence exists between the two aforementioned crimes, the defendant shall be punished in accordance with the law for the heavier offense, namely the crime of “subversion of state power”.
Regarding the part in which the defendant was indicted for two counts of the crime of “subversion of state power” and two counts of the crime of “engaging in acts endangering national security in collaboration with organisations, groups or individuals outside the MSAR”, arising from the collusion with multiple overseas organisations, the Collegiate Panel established that during the period from 2023 to 2024, the defendant colluded successively with multiple overseas organisations, personally assisting them in collecting false and manifestly distorted information, and conspired to publicly disseminate such information. This was done with the intent to provoke foreign countries to take hostile actions against the State and the MSAR, incite hatred among MSAR residents toward the Central People’s Government, and disrupt the progress of the election for the sixth-term Chief Executive of the MSAR. The defendant’s acts fully satisfy the constitutive elements of the crime of “engaging in acts endangering national security in collaboration with organisations, groups or individuals outside the MSAR”, and the defendant shall be punished for two counts of the crime of “engaging in acts endangering national security in collaboration with organisations, groups or individuals outside the MSAR”. As for the two counts of the crime of “subversion of state power” for which the defendant was additionally indicted under the aforementioned part, since the Collegiate Panel considered that doubts remained as to whether the defendant’s relevant acts had substantively met the statutory requirements regarding the degree of “overthrowing or undermining” required for the said crime, the Court, based on the principle of in dubio pro reo, acquitted the defendant of those two counts of the crime of “subversion of state power”.
Regarding the part concerning the crime of “breach of secrecy”, according to the facts established by the Collegiate Panel, the defendant, in his capacity as a member of the Legislative Assembly in 2021, disclosed to an overseas organisation confidential information which he had acquired due to his participation in closed-door meetings of the Legislative Assembly’s Follow-up Committee on Land and Public Concessions regarding the renewal of gaming concessions. This fully satisfies the constitutive elements of the crime of “breach of secrecy” as stipulated under Article 348 of the Penal Code.
The Collegiate Panel pointed out in its statement of reasons for the judgment that the series of acts committed by the defendant as shown in this case had severely trampled upon the legal interests that the relevant legal provisions seek to protect. Although the defendant is a first-time offender and confessed to having committed a substantial part of the criminal acts, the degree of intent was extremely high, and both the degree of unlawfulness of the relevant crimes and the potential consequences were very serious.
In light of the established facts and the relevant statutory provisions, the Collegiate Panel, upon deliberation, hereby rendered the following judgment:
- The defendant was found not guilty of the two counts of the crime of “subversion of state power” for which they were indicted due to suspected collusion with multiple overseas organisations, and the court hereby acquitted the defendant of these charges;
- Regarding the one count of the crime of “engaging in acts endangering national security in collaboration with organisations, groups or individuals outside the MSAR” for which the defendant was indicted for having illegally colluded with overseas hostile organisations and conspired to endanger national security, given that an apparent concurrence exists between this crime and the one count of the crime of “subversion of state power” for which the defendant was indicted based on the same facts, no independent penalty shall be imposed for this crime;
- The defendant, having committed as a principal and in its completed form one count of the crime of “subversion of state power” as provided for and punished under Article 9, subparagraph (1) of Law No. 2/2009 Law on Safeguarding National Security, as amended by Law No. 8/2023, is sentenced to 11 years and three months of imprisonment;
- The defendant was convicted of one count of the crime of “engaging in acts endangering national security in collaboration with organisations, groups or individuals outside the MSAR”, arising from the collusion with multiple overseas organisations”, prescribed and punishable under Article 13, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (3) and (4), read in conjunction with paragraph 2, subparagraph (2) and subparagraph (4), sub-subparagraph (1) of Law No. 2/2009, Law on Safeguarding National Security, as amended by Law No. 8/2023, committed as a principal and in their completed form; and another count of the “engaging in acts endangering national security in collaboration with organisations, groups or individuals outside the MSAR”, arising from the collusion with multiple overseas organisations”, prescribed and punishable under Article 13, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (2) and (4), read in conjunction with paragraph 2, subparagraph (2) and subparagraph (4), sub-subparagraph (1), all under Article 13 of Law No. 2/2009, Law on Safeguarding National Security, as amended by Law No. 8/2023, committed as a principal offender in their completed form; and was sentenced to three years and nine months of imprisonment for each of the respective counts;
- The defendant was convicted of one count of the crime of “breach of secrecy”, prescribed and punishable under Paragraph 1 of Article 348 of the Penal Code of Macao, committed as a principal offender and in its completed form, and was sentenced to nine months of imprisonment;
- Pursuant to the provisions of Article 71 of the Penal Code regarding concurrent sentences for multiple offences, the defendant is liable to a sentencing range of 11 years and three months to 19 years and six months of imprisonment. Following the deliberation by the panel of judges, the Court ultimately decided to sentence the defendant, Au Kam San, to a single penalty of 12 years and six months of imprisonment.
Dozens of citizens, members of the media, and family members of the defendant attended the public reading of the verdict on 6 November.