CITY HARVEST CHURCH LEADERS'
TRIAL
ABOUT THE CASE
City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee and five deputies are on
trial for allegedly misusing more than $50 million of church funds
in sham bond investments. This includes $24 million to fund Kong's
pop singer-wife Sun Ho's music career and another $26.6 million to
cover up the first amount.
The six face varying charges for criminal breach of
trust (CBT) and/or falsifying accounts.
Those found guilty of committing CBT can be jailed
for life, or a maximum of 20 years and fined.
Those guilty of falsifying accounts can be jailed
up to 10 years and/or fined.
Will CHC 6 have case to
answer?
Managing to hide sham
transactions
well doesn't mean they didn't do
wrong,
says prosecution
Reports by KOH HUI THENG
Defence lawyers and the prosecution team wrapped up
their submissions yesterday.
Come May 5, Chief District Judge See Kee Oon will
decide if the defence has a case to answer.
It was always going to be a complicated case with
terms like round-tripping and sham bonds thrown up in court.
And with countless e-mails and reams of documents
pulled up as evidence, the prosecution had to piece together a
picture of sophisticated criminal intent.
But that attempt to piece together the evidence
prompted defence lawyer Kenneth Tan (representing board member John
Lam) to earlier say that the evidence cited was so disparate that
the judge "has been asked to draw dots or to colour places which
are gaps".
In the prosecution's submissions yesterday, Chief
Prosecutor Mavis Chionh connected the dots in an attempt to show
that church leaders had committed wrongdoing.
1
FEW
KNEW
There were a number of contradictions about the relationship
between Xtron, pop singer Sun Ho's former management company, and
City Harvest Church (CHC).
Xtron had issued the bond investments. But email
exchanges showed CHC founder Kong Hee, his No. 2 Tan Ye Peng,
investment manager Chew Eng Ran and former finance manager Serina
Wee - people with no official positions in Xtron - were
"deciding what is going to happen to the bond proceeds and how the
money is going to be used", Ms Chionh said.
Only a limited circle knew about the bond details,
Indonesian tycoon Wahju Hanafi's guarantee and its
counter-guarantee. The board was also kept in the dark about a
secret letter, drafted to assure Mr Hanafi's father-in-law.
"The totality of the evidence taken together" was
enough to call for the defence to answer the sham bond charges, Ms
Chionh said.
2
ROUND-TRIPPING
Tan Ye Peng had instructed finance manager Sharon Tan, Chew and
Wee to work out an early version of the roundtripping scheme, Ms
Chionh said.
The information was captured on a white board.
An e-mail exchange showed Sharon Tan telling Chew
and Wee "that they have been given one week to do so", Ms Chionh
said.
The accused had also fed auditors "a pack of lies"
about the transactions, she added.
For example, auditor Sim Guan Seng was told in a
2009 meeting with church representatives that the Special
Opportunities Fund (SOF) was a legitimate investment even though
the money was not invested in anything.
Mr Sim said in his testimony that board member John
Lam "couldn't tell him" what the SOF actually was when asked.
3
AVOIDED
AUDITOR
The defence's stand that what mattered in this case was the
auditors' knowledge of the accounts - rather than what was
concealed - is startling, Ms Chionh said.
The accused had approached audit firm director
Foong Daw Ching for off-the-record meetings when "there was
absolutely no reason" to.
They could have voiced their concerns with the
actual auditor, Mr Sim, who was working with them.
"Instead (they sneaked) around his back to consult
Mr Foong," Ms Chionh said.
Such concealment confirmed that the real purpose of
the consultations "was to facilitate ... entering into sham
transactions and then covering it up".
The only inference to be drawn was that the accused
wanted to avoid any investigations "that could lead to the
unravelling of their shams".
She added: "This is like the fraudster who manages
to hide his own crimes, then trying to rely on his success in
hiding that crime to exonerate himself."
Defence: Knowledge of wrong use is not
dishonesty
Former finance manager Serina Wee had no case to answer
when it came to dishonesty, said her lawyer Andre Maniam, as
"church money was used for church purposes".
Having knowledge of wrong use does not equate to dishonesty.
Honesty or dishonesty depends on the "state of
mind", he added. And the accused had the church's benefits at
heart.
Wee (right) also had no intention of defrauding
auditors, Mr Maniam said, citing various examples. For Instance,
information about the church having a close relationship with
Xtron, the company that used to manage pop singer Sun Ho, was made
known.
Bond proceeds meant for the Crossover Project - the
mission to use pop music to evangelise - were used for the project
in question.
Added Mr Maniam: "There was no hiding of the true
purpose of the bonds, (which) was always made plain to the
auditors."
Hence, he argued, the evidence the prosecution
presented could not support allegations of "sham" transactions or
there being wrongful loss to the church. Wee was simply acting to
further the church's objectives, he said.
News, The New Paper, Thursday, April 10 2014, Pg 18
