Nyarugenge Intermediate Court on Monday, July 13, began the substantive trial of Chinese businessman Billy Cheung, the investor behind Century Park, in a closed-door hearing. Cheung is being prosecuted on charges that include money laundering and fraud. The judge decided that the hearing be held in camera following an application by the defence team, which argued that the information expected to be presented during the trial was of a sensitive nature. ALSO READ: Nyarugenge court upholds remand for Chinese investor Billy Cheung The judge relied on Article 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that court hearings are generally conducted in public but may be held in camera if public proceedings could endanger public order or public morals, or whenever the court considers such a measure necessary. The article further states that where a hearing is conducted in camera, decisions on objections and incidental proceedings may also be delivered privately. But the final judgment on the merits must always be pronounced in public. Cheung was arrested in February 2025 and was later remanded by the Kicukiro Primary Court. He appealed the remand order but has since been denied bail. ALSO READ: Debt, receivership and closure: Unpacking Century Park’s woes According to prosecutors, Cheung's alleged offences stem from financial disputes involving creditors in Rwanda and Uganda, with outstanding debts reportedly amounting to approximately $51.6 million. Prosecutors allege that Cheung defrauded more than 200 businesspeople in Uganda by obtaining about $23 million for the construction of a modern market project that was never completed before he allegedly fled to Rwanda. In Rwanda, investigators also reportedly uncovered irregularities in the registration of his properties, including the unexplained removal of caveats on assets that had been held as security by KCB Bank Rwanda. Court decisions issued against Cheung in Uganda were subsequently recognised and upheld by Rwandan courts, allowing creditors to pursue enforcement of debt recovery. The Chinese investor and his defence team, however, maintains that the matter is purely a civil debt dispute rather than a criminal case. His lawyers argue that the Ugandan court decisions were based on manipulated documents and contend that the money laundering allegations are unfounded.
