SINGAPORE: The prosecution on Monday wrapped up its case against the
six leaders of the City Harvest Church after completing questioning of
its last witness, Mdm Foong Ai Fang, an audit manager at Baker Tilly.
Church
founder Kong Hee and his five deputies are accused of misusing millions
of the church's building fund monies to boost the career of singer Sun
Ho.
After 42 days in court, the defence lawyers have indicated
that they will submit to the judge that the defendants have no case to
answer.
Both the prosecution and defence will exchange written submissions on this in March.
In
April, District Judge See Kee Oon will decide if the prosecution has
produced sufficient evidence to support its claims of criminal breach of
trust, among other things.
The prosecution argued that this was done through "sham bond investments" in Xtron and Firna.
Last
month, the lead auditor in-charge of the church's accounts testified
that the bond investments made by the church did not make sense.
Mr
Sim Guan Seng of Baker Tilly said that the bond transactions between
the church, Xtron and Firna looked as though they were set up for
specific purposes, which would "raise a lot of red flags".
But the defence countered that the investments were not "sham" just because Mr Sim said they were not sound.
A key point of contention was the secrecy that shrouded the discussions among the accused.
Referring
to various emails, the prosecution tried to make the point that the
defendants were hiding information from the auditors as well as church
members.
But the defence pointed out that there was no breach in
the church's constitution when the Building Fund was used for the
investments.
Its case is that it was always clear the church's
building fund monies were used to produce Ms Ho's music albums and that
the auditors signed off on the various audits.
It also stressed that no church money was lost.
But the court also heard that the information which the auditors based their work on came from the accused.
If the judge decides that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence, the defence will present its case in July.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Funds for Ho's career 'used in same manner since 2003' Auditors aware building fund was being tapped but only queried if it was allowed (BT: 8 Feb 2014)
THE
six people on trial from City Harvest Church could not have harboured
criminal intent if they had been using funds for the pop career of Ms Ho
Yeow Sun in the same manner since 2003, defence counsel said yesterday.
Likewise, audit firm Baker Tilly kept the same "state of mind" towards church accounts throughout the entire period it served the church, as well as the church-linked music production firm Xtron.
To prove their point, lawyers Edwin Tong and Andre Maniam, representing pastor Kong Hee and former church finance manager Serina Wee, respectively, cited e-mails from far back as 2003.
Mr Tong said: "The state of mind of Baker Tilly internally in the way they assess the materials given to them ... was treated in a way in 2003, and continued to be so into the period of the charges in question."
Kong, Wee and four others are on trial for varying charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts in allegedly funnelling about $50 million of the church's building fund monies into alleged bogus deals between 2007 and 2009.
In 2003, former churchgoer Roland Poon flagged concerns about the misuse of church funds, prompting a special audit helmed by churchgoer and then Baker Tilly managing partner Foong Daw Ching. He made a video statement that it was his "professional opinion that no church funds were ever used" in promoting the career of Ms Ho, who is Kong's wife.
Thus, the church had the impression it was business as usual, said the defence, even if the money came from a fund kept for a specific purpose.
Mr N. Sreenivasan, lawyer for deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, yesterday argued that Baker Tilly was aware the building fund was being tapped for Ms Ho's career.
But auditors only queried if this was permitted under church Constitution, and did not raise other concerns.
Prosecution witness Foong Ai Fang, audit manager for the church for financial years 2002 to 2010, and Xtron from FY2003 to FY2009, said it was "not necessary to consider" the church's point of view because the investments were on Xtron's books.
She also agreed with Mr Maniam that the church was "forthcoming and cooperative with audit queries".
Parties came to a head yesterday over several documents the defence wanted to look at, but prosecutors said were not relevant. They include the firm's working papers for the FY2009 audit for Xtron, aborted after the probe was launched. These were not seized by the authorities. But working papers for the church's incomplete FY2010 audit are before the court.
Mr Tong said the FY2009 Xtron working papers would show "the auditors' thinking as regards significant issues from the prior years' audits, experiences that they have gained and what they intend to look at".
Chief District Judge See Kee Oon allowed the request. The trial continues on Monday.
Likewise, audit firm Baker Tilly kept the same "state of mind" towards church accounts throughout the entire period it served the church, as well as the church-linked music production firm Xtron.
To prove their point, lawyers Edwin Tong and Andre Maniam, representing pastor Kong Hee and former church finance manager Serina Wee, respectively, cited e-mails from far back as 2003.
Mr Tong said: "The state of mind of Baker Tilly internally in the way they assess the materials given to them ... was treated in a way in 2003, and continued to be so into the period of the charges in question."
Kong, Wee and four others are on trial for varying charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts in allegedly funnelling about $50 million of the church's building fund monies into alleged bogus deals between 2007 and 2009.
In 2003, former churchgoer Roland Poon flagged concerns about the misuse of church funds, prompting a special audit helmed by churchgoer and then Baker Tilly managing partner Foong Daw Ching. He made a video statement that it was his "professional opinion that no church funds were ever used" in promoting the career of Ms Ho, who is Kong's wife.
Thus, the church had the impression it was business as usual, said the defence, even if the money came from a fund kept for a specific purpose.
Mr N. Sreenivasan, lawyer for deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, yesterday argued that Baker Tilly was aware the building fund was being tapped for Ms Ho's career.
But auditors only queried if this was permitted under church Constitution, and did not raise other concerns.
Prosecution witness Foong Ai Fang, audit manager for the church for financial years 2002 to 2010, and Xtron from FY2003 to FY2009, said it was "not necessary to consider" the church's point of view because the investments were on Xtron's books.
She also agreed with Mr Maniam that the church was "forthcoming and cooperative with audit queries".
Parties came to a head yesterday over several documents the defence wanted to look at, but prosecutors said were not relevant. They include the firm's working papers for the FY2009 audit for Xtron, aborted after the probe was launched. These were not seized by the authorities. But working papers for the church's incomplete FY2010 audit are before the court.
Mr Tong said the FY2009 Xtron working papers would show "the auditors' thinking as regards significant issues from the prior years' audits, experiences that they have gained and what they intend to look at".
Chief District Judge See Kee Oon allowed the request. The trial continues on Monday.
CHC trial: Auditor "misrepresented" himself to church management (CNA: 7 Feb 2014)
SINGAPORE: One of the defence lawyers representing the
six leaders of the City Harvest Church has alleged in court that a
Baker Tilly auditor had misrepresented himself to the church's
management.
The auditor in question is Mr Foong Daw Ching, who testified against the six accused in previous hearings.
Mr N Sreenivasan, who represents accused Tan Ye Peng, asked witness Mdm Foong Ai Fang on Friday about Mr Foong calling himself the "consultant partner" of the CHC group of companies in an email.
Mdm Foong, who is Mr Foong's sister, testified that there was no such position at Baker Tilly. When asked if Mr Foong was then lying, Mdm Foong said she does not know what he meant by "consultant partner" and that she was stating the truth.
The court had heard previously that Mr Foong had provided general advice on the church's transactions, to the accused. However, the defence's case is that he had provided advice in his professional capacity.
Church founder Kong Hee and five deputies are accused of misusing millions of the church's building fund monies to boost the career of singer Sun Ho.
The prosecution alleges that the offences were committed via "sham bond investments" involving Ms Ho's former management company, Xtron.
Later on Friday, lawyers Mr Edwin Tong and Mr Andre Maniam tried to make the point that the church leaders did not have the mens rea, which is the state of mind, to commit the alleged offences.
They took the court through documents from as early as 2003 to show that the way the church funds were used at that time were no different than those made in 2007 and subsequent years.
The church had purchased the Xtron bonds in 2007 and amended the agreement in 2008.
The lawyers also made the point that the accused had been providing information to the auditors freely.
This, the defence argued, reflects the state of mind of the accused, whom they say have nothing to hide from auditors.
Mdm Foong will continue to take the stand on February 10.
The auditor in question is Mr Foong Daw Ching, who testified against the six accused in previous hearings.
Mr N Sreenivasan, who represents accused Tan Ye Peng, asked witness Mdm Foong Ai Fang on Friday about Mr Foong calling himself the "consultant partner" of the CHC group of companies in an email.
Mdm Foong, who is Mr Foong's sister, testified that there was no such position at Baker Tilly. When asked if Mr Foong was then lying, Mdm Foong said she does not know what he meant by "consultant partner" and that she was stating the truth.
The court had heard previously that Mr Foong had provided general advice on the church's transactions, to the accused. However, the defence's case is that he had provided advice in his professional capacity.
Church founder Kong Hee and five deputies are accused of misusing millions of the church's building fund monies to boost the career of singer Sun Ho.
The prosecution alleges that the offences were committed via "sham bond investments" involving Ms Ho's former management company, Xtron.
Later on Friday, lawyers Mr Edwin Tong and Mr Andre Maniam tried to make the point that the church leaders did not have the mens rea, which is the state of mind, to commit the alleged offences.
They took the court through documents from as early as 2003 to show that the way the church funds were used at that time were no different than those made in 2007 and subsequent years.
The church had purchased the Xtron bonds in 2007 and amended the agreement in 2008.
The lawyers also made the point that the accused had been providing information to the auditors freely.
This, the defence argued, reflects the state of mind of the accused, whom they say have nothing to hide from auditors.
Mdm Foong will continue to take the stand on February 10.
Is Xtron and City Harvest Church Related? (Notunderthetable.blogspot.com)
The "City Harvest Church Trial" is now entering into the end of the 3rd tranche and court proceedings is getting draggy with an over-focus on the auditors and Xtron bonds and other minute details. It's looking like a tennis match!
Me thinks the contention should be on the relationship between CHC and Xtron, instead of whether the auditors were aware. After all, auditors only have after-the-fact info to audit the accounts prepared by the management board. This article looks at the relationship between CHC and Xtron.
Here's an article where a recording of a EGM was held on 28 March 2010.
It's painful to listen to the entire recording of over 2 hours, so the
transcription given by the person who posted on CHC Confessions page and
summarize the key content is added below for reference:
1) How is Xtron's relationship with Sun?
According to Mr Choong Kar Weng (one of the Directors of Xtron) and an ex-Board Member of CHC (in 1:23:30 of the recording),
If Xtron is no longer Sun's agent with effect from 31st July 2008, how can the proceeds of Sun Ho's album sales after 1st August 2008 repay CHC's investment over 10 years, based on the restructured bonds with a 10-year redemption period as reported in CityNewsSG (source)?
2) Are the "Crossover" Personal Guarantees Suspicious?
Imagine this: Xena runs a CD shop but business was not doing well, and lost $6million over the past few years. Last year, Xena decided to start a business selling CDs online and goes to Charlie to obtain a loan for the business, promising 7% interest in return. Charlie agrees, since the returns of 7% is attractive, and lends Xena the money, in spite of Xena's failing business. Xena promises to return the money in 2 years but was unable to repay the debt fully because the police caught them selling pirated CDs and business was halted. Xena then negotiated with Charlie to restructure the debt and pay it off within 10 years, using proceeds from the CD sales. To convince Charlie that his investment is safe, Xena asked Charlie's best friend, Wilfred to help guarantee the loan - in case Xena fails to repay the debt, Wilfred will be responsible to repay Charlie. Now - does it make sense that Charlie now become a guarantor to Wilfred on it's own loan, such that in the event Xena and Wilfred fail to repay Charlie's loan, Charlie will come in to cover the loan for Wilfred's behalf?
The crossing over of personal guarantees is a major point of consideration in the validity of Xtron Bonds because in the event that Xtron cannot redeem it's bonds issued to CHC, then a personal guarantee that Wahyu Hanifi placed to indemnify Xtron against all loses it was to suffer for the Crossover Project will take effect (source). The interesting thing was that according to media reports, Pastor Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han and Koh Siow Ngea had also signed personal guarantee to indemnify Hanafi for any losses he might incur as a result of his indemnity.
3) Is Xtron a viable commercial business?
This part is a constant exchange of microphone to present Xtron and CHC sides by Pastor Aries Zulkernain and Choong Kar Weng respectively:
According to Mr Choong Kar Weng (one of the Directors of Xtron) and an
ex-Board Member of CHC (in 1:07:56 of the recording) at the invitation
of Pastor Kong,
"Xtron Productions was started in the year 2003 as a private business to engage the marketplace in the area of media and entertainment. It seeks to be a professional events management company that can be contracted for commercial professional concerts, conventions, and national events. The current directors of Xtron are me (Kar Weng) and Siow Ngea.... We have not taken any Directors fees or dividends and both of us do not intend to in the future".
Pastor Aries continues to explain the scope of Xtron - because the
existing CHC staff are not skilled to run the events, hence CHC has to
engage other parties like Chiap Seng Pte Ltd, Unusual Productions, etc
to provide equipment and personnel support. Xtron also to provides CHC's
full time AV staff who are dissatisfied with their career development
prospects (i.e. doing the same thing week in and week out - plug in to
equipment, plug out). Xtron provides an avenue for the full-time AV
staff of CHC opportunities to expand their careers and gain more
exposure to other productions etc .. and work with other industry
professionals in Asia so they will not quit.
The mic was handed back to Choong Kar Weng - he explains that Xtron took
part in many commercial projects (a list of them)... then he follows: "today, I'm happy to say that Xtron is one of the leading production companies in Singapore. Our team consists of some of the most respected sought after professionals in the media industry"
Pastor Aries took over to explain why they chose Xtron - because they
are Christians and share the same values and work ethics as CHC. He
added, "their (Xtron) prices are competitive compared to other companies"
and they are dependable and willing to serve CHC (in terms of
supporting them with last minute work request on 24/7 basis, etc)
Choong Kar Weng then added, " Xtron is a for-profit business that charges commercial rates for its services provided. When we work with CHC, we deal with the church (CHC) at arms length
just like any other clients. We are grateful that CHC is our major
client and we do want to have a long-term relationship with that's mutually beneficial"
Pastor Aries added that in 2005 when CHC is looking for their building,
they wanted a stadium arena or conventional hall (a commercial property
that can be rented out whenever CHC is not using it). This requires a
fully privatized company to acquire and manage the use of the CHC
commercial property. So when we went to Expo, we have to commit to a
certain number of days which is more than what we require for CHC's
services or events usage.
Choong Kar Weng added - so in 2005 Xtron became the master lessee (we are the main tenant master tenant) of Singapore Expo Hall 8, and we sub-let the facility to CHC. Our role is also to actively seek other potential users of the expo hall when CHC is not using so they can earn more.
Pastor Aries addeded that they also adopt the same model for Suntec
deal. Xtron signed the license agreement with Suntec, and sub-let to
CHC. On those days CHC does not require space, Xtron will rent out the
hall to
third parties to bring in additional revenue to defray the rental cost
of CHC. This was explained and documented in the 10 Aug 2008 EOGM. "Management board has evaluated the rates of various service providers and found Xtron's charges to be reasonable and competitive" (he cited some examples such as manpower expenses and reliable services)
Who can reject such a "mutually beneficial partnership"? However,
looking at what the auditors highlighted, Xtron actually recorded 4 consecutive year-on-year losses between Dec 2004 to Dec 2007 totaling $5,891,401.
The accumulated losses up to Dec 2006 amounted to $3,444,908. Not quite
the profile one who claims themselves to be one of the leading
production companies in Singapore would have. Times are really bad me
thinks! "Mutually beneficial"?
Yet in spite of the horrible financials, CHC proceeded to invest in
Xtron's bonds issues, and subsequently took a restructuring offer and
cross guaranteeing the guarantor's personal guarantee - in spite of the
consecutive muitiple period running losses, and that their cash cow (Sun
Ho) is no longer under their management from 31st July 2008. How did
Xtron even stay on in business, with such losses over 4 years?
Without considering the auditors opinion, me thinks that any level
headed individual will see something wrong in this money-lending
relationship? Considering the fact that CHC and Xtron claims to be
unrelated parties, this will be even more intriguing to see.
4) Are the Executive Members aware that CHC's Building Funds are used to fund Sun's Crossover Project?
Now that the court proceedings and CHC finally revealed that Xtron bonds were used to support Sun Ho's career using money from the CHC's Building Funds, the question is when were the Executive Members made aware of this "fact"? Was in before the bonds were purchased in 2007/2008, or was it during the same straw poll EGM meeting on 28 March 2010?
According to Dr Victor Lim Fei, then an Executive Member of CHC in 2010 and currently one of it's Board Members (1:39:30), "Pastor I just want to say as you already mentioned just now, Sun's embodiment of the Cultural Mandate is the collective vision of CHC - everyone of us here in this place. As such, I would like to perhaps recommend the full support of the church be excapaded to include whatever financial and manpower resources we can muster for the work that she's doing"
Still, as at 2010 there's no mention of the funding of Sun's Crossover project using church building funds - or rather, at least at the date of this clip implies, that the EMs were not even aware that church funding was even used until Dr Victor Lim recommended the full financial and manpower support. How much more the other members who have no access to the meetings? In fact, from as early as 2002/2003, the church were time and time again reminded that her singing career was not funded with a single cent of church funds!
Legally, it did not really matter regarding the bond issue, since as reported in the media, the auditors only recorded relevant entries - and since bond investments were accurately recorded that CHC building fund was invested in Xtron Bonds, it is now up to Xtron to use the money in whatever way it deems fit - such as to continue to fund Sun Ho's singing career (even when she is no longer under Xtron's management??)
Backdated Documents and Emails
Throughout the second and third tranche of the trial, the deputy public prosecutors also produced many records of emails suggesting that CHC staff is directing the flow of funds, and that the directors of Xtron do not always have answers as to when and why they signed certain documents. This just adds to the cloud of confusion between the relationship of CHC and Xtron.
Does CHC control Xtron? Let's leave it to the judge to decide, but me thinks the relationship between them is obviously clear. Next up, we will look at another company involved in the alleged sham bonds transaction - PT Firna Glass.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Auditor Baker Tilly 'knew about sham deals' (ST: 7 Feb 2014)
CITY
Harvest Church's auditor Baker Tilly TFW knew about the supposedly sham
deals made using church money, looked into them and approved the books
in the end.
What is more, the church's founder Kong Hee and five others accused of misusing about $50 million of church funds had been advised by Mr Foong Daw Ching, the firm's managing partner at the time, on the transactions. These were the twin lines of defence put up yesterday by Mr Kannan Ramesh, a lawyer representing church finance manager Sharon Tan.
In the more than six hours spent questioning prosecution witness and Baker Tilly audit manager Foong Ai Fang, Mr Ramesh referred to a stream of new and old documents to make his case that the accused had been upfront with auditors about the use of church money.
One pencilled note in the firm's working papers seemed to indicate that it had received a copy of a bond contract - allegedly one of the bogus deals - five days after it was signed.
Another note on a Baker Tilly document related to the bonds indicated that AMAC Capital Partners was the church's investment manager. Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng objected and pointed out that the note did not specify if AMAC, which had bought the bonds, invested on the church's behalf or for itself.
Mr Ramesh also pointed to documents that showed how several of the accused had consulted Mr Foong - Ms Foong's brother - about the deals. When Mr Ramesh put to her that "Mr Foong must have spoken to you" about the talks, she said: "No." Mr Ramesh also noted that while Baker Tilly auditor Sim Guan Seng, who led the church's audits for the periods when the deals took place, raised numerous concerns about them, he approved the church's accounts.
Mr Sim said last week that he had not seen many documents related to the deals shown to him by the prosecution during the ongoing trial. He said these would have troubled him. The defence said some of the information had existed in the firm's archives.
What is more, the church's founder Kong Hee and five others accused of misusing about $50 million of church funds had been advised by Mr Foong Daw Ching, the firm's managing partner at the time, on the transactions. These were the twin lines of defence put up yesterday by Mr Kannan Ramesh, a lawyer representing church finance manager Sharon Tan.
In the more than six hours spent questioning prosecution witness and Baker Tilly audit manager Foong Ai Fang, Mr Ramesh referred to a stream of new and old documents to make his case that the accused had been upfront with auditors about the use of church money.
One pencilled note in the firm's working papers seemed to indicate that it had received a copy of a bond contract - allegedly one of the bogus deals - five days after it was signed.
Another note on a Baker Tilly document related to the bonds indicated that AMAC Capital Partners was the church's investment manager. Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng objected and pointed out that the note did not specify if AMAC, which had bought the bonds, invested on the church's behalf or for itself.
Mr Ramesh also pointed to documents that showed how several of the accused had consulted Mr Foong - Ms Foong's brother - about the deals. When Mr Ramesh put to her that "Mr Foong must have spoken to you" about the talks, she said: "No." Mr Ramesh also noted that while Baker Tilly auditor Sim Guan Seng, who led the church's audits for the periods when the deals took place, raised numerous concerns about them, he approved the church's accounts.
Mr Sim said last week that he had not seen many documents related to the deals shown to him by the prosecution during the ongoing trial. He said these would have troubled him. The defence said some of the information had existed in the firm's archives.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
CHC trial: Auditors knew about bond investments, say defence lawyers(CNA, 6th Feb 2014)
SINGAPORE — Defence lawyers representing the six leaders of the City Harvest Church today (Feb 6) said that the auditors from Baker Tilly hired to go through the church’s books were kept informed of its bond investments.
Mr Kannan Ramesh, the lawyer of defendant Sharon Tan, today took the lead in the cross-examination of audit manager Mdm Foong Ai Fang.
Through various email exchanges between the church leaders and the auditors, Mr Ramesh sought to show that the entire auditing team had access to information about the bond investments made by the church, from as early as March 2008.
The church had subscribed to bonds in Xtron, the former management firm of singer Sun Ho, for S$13 million.
The agreement was dated Aug 17, 2008. In particular, the defence brought up a document where a member of the audit team received a copy of the agreement five days later, on Aug 22, 2008.
Yesterday, Mdm Foong had testified she had not been privy to details of the bond subscription agreement.
Another point was made by the defence — that auditor Mr Foong Daw Ching, who is also Mdm Foong’s brother, had been the overall in-charge when it came to matters relating to the church and Xtron.
In statements and emails raised by the defence, the court heard that Mr Foong had described himself as the consultant partner to the whole of the church’s group of companies. But when asked, Mdm Foong denied having any knowledge of this.
She added that Mr Foong was not involved in the audits of the church or Xtron.
The defence’s case is that the six leaders had sought professional advice from Mr Foong on the various matters, including the bond investments and that they were approved by the auditors.
Church founder Kong Hee and five deputies are accused of misusing millions of the church’s building fund to boost the career of Ms Ho, through the use of alleged “sham bond investments”.
Mr Kannan Ramesh, the lawyer of defendant Sharon Tan, today took the lead in the cross-examination of audit manager Mdm Foong Ai Fang.
Through various email exchanges between the church leaders and the auditors, Mr Ramesh sought to show that the entire auditing team had access to information about the bond investments made by the church, from as early as March 2008.
The church had subscribed to bonds in Xtron, the former management firm of singer Sun Ho, for S$13 million.
The agreement was dated Aug 17, 2008. In particular, the defence brought up a document where a member of the audit team received a copy of the agreement five days later, on Aug 22, 2008.
Yesterday, Mdm Foong had testified she had not been privy to details of the bond subscription agreement.
Another point was made by the defence — that auditor Mr Foong Daw Ching, who is also Mdm Foong’s brother, had been the overall in-charge when it came to matters relating to the church and Xtron.
In statements and emails raised by the defence, the court heard that Mr Foong had described himself as the consultant partner to the whole of the church’s group of companies. But when asked, Mdm Foong denied having any knowledge of this.
She added that Mr Foong was not involved in the audits of the church or Xtron.
The defence’s case is that the six leaders had sought professional advice from Mr Foong on the various matters, including the bond investments and that they were approved by the auditors.
Church founder Kong Hee and five deputies are accused of misusing millions of the church’s building fund to boost the career of Ms Ho, through the use of alleged “sham bond investments”.
CHC trial: Audit manager not privy to investment details (CNA: 5th Feb 2014)
SINGAPORE: The audit manager overseeing City Harvest
Church's accounts testified on Wednesday that she had not been privy to
details of bond investments or arrangements the church had made.
The court heard from Mdm Foong Ai Fang of Baker Tilly that the six church leaders accused of misusing millions of the church's building fund had left out details of the investment in Xtron bonds.
Xtron is a firm that used to manage singer Sun Ho's music career.
The prosecution alleges that it is one of the firms used to cover up the misuse of church funds by Ms Ho's husband and church founder, Kong Hee, and his five deputies through "sham bond investments".
Mdm Foong, who was the liaison between the auditing team and the church, said that she had no clue when the bonds were redeemed or that arrangements were made for them to be redeemed.
The prosecution took her through several emails and minutes of meetings, as it sought to prove that the six church leaders provided little or left out key information to mislead auditors.
The court heard from Mdm Foong Ai Fang of Baker Tilly that the six church leaders accused of misusing millions of the church's building fund had left out details of the investment in Xtron bonds.
Xtron is a firm that used to manage singer Sun Ho's music career.
The prosecution alleges that it is one of the firms used to cover up the misuse of church funds by Ms Ho's husband and church founder, Kong Hee, and his five deputies through "sham bond investments".
Mdm Foong, who was the liaison between the auditing team and the church, said that she had no clue when the bonds were redeemed or that arrangements were made for them to be redeemed.
The prosecution took her through several emails and minutes of meetings, as it sought to prove that the six church leaders provided little or left out key information to mislead auditors.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Investigator, defence tussle over first City Harvest report (ST: 30 Jan 2014)
THE authorities had received information connected to transactions, now
alleged to be bogus, by City Harvest Church members as far back as
2008.
Almost two years later, in 2010, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) opened an investigation into the matter.
This timeline emerged in court yesterday when prosecution witness Kevin Han, who led the CAD investigation, clarified that 2008 was when sources first came forward with information related to the alleged wrongdoings. He had said earlier the first information about the case surfaced in 2005.
Six people, including City Harvest founder Kong Hee, are on trial for allegedly funnelling millions in church funds through bogus deals between 2007 and 2009, either to finance the pop music career of his wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, or to cover this up.
Mr Han's clarification that it was 2008, and not 2005, was seized upon by defence lawyer N. Sreenivasan, who said that the CAD had given him a 2010 report when he had asked for the "first information report" (FIR) about the charges against his client, deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng.
Mr Sreenivasan said he had been "misled", and added the FIR was "moving all over the place". He said the accused should have the true FIR so they could explain the alleged conduct in it.
He also noted that if the FIR was in 2008, CAD did not commence investigations until "almost one year and eight months" later. To this, Mr Han said "there may have been enquiries done on the report, but I am not aware".
Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh argued that the 2010 report was CAD's assessment "based upon their examination of information from various sources". She noted that the prosecution had clarified this with Mr Sreenivasan shortly after that report was sent.
When the defence sought to find out more about the 2008 report, Ms Chionh said that, as it is a suspicious transaction report, its content is confidential to protect the informer's identity under the law.
Defence lawyer Andre Maniam, acting for former finance manager Serina Wee, requested a copy of what the prosecution considered the FIR, even if redactions were needed. Chief District Judge See Kee Oon suggested he take it up with the prosecution.
The trial is expected to resume next Wednesday with Ms Foong Ai Fang, who was involved in the audits of the church.
Almost two years later, in 2010, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) opened an investigation into the matter.
This timeline emerged in court yesterday when prosecution witness Kevin Han, who led the CAD investigation, clarified that 2008 was when sources first came forward with information related to the alleged wrongdoings. He had said earlier the first information about the case surfaced in 2005.
Six people, including City Harvest founder Kong Hee, are on trial for allegedly funnelling millions in church funds through bogus deals between 2007 and 2009, either to finance the pop music career of his wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, or to cover this up.
Mr Han's clarification that it was 2008, and not 2005, was seized upon by defence lawyer N. Sreenivasan, who said that the CAD had given him a 2010 report when he had asked for the "first information report" (FIR) about the charges against his client, deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng.
Mr Sreenivasan said he had been "misled", and added the FIR was "moving all over the place". He said the accused should have the true FIR so they could explain the alleged conduct in it.
He also noted that if the FIR was in 2008, CAD did not commence investigations until "almost one year and eight months" later. To this, Mr Han said "there may have been enquiries done on the report, but I am not aware".
Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh argued that the 2010 report was CAD's assessment "based upon their examination of information from various sources". She noted that the prosecution had clarified this with Mr Sreenivasan shortly after that report was sent.
When the defence sought to find out more about the 2008 report, Ms Chionh said that, as it is a suspicious transaction report, its content is confidential to protect the informer's identity under the law.
Defence lawyer Andre Maniam, acting for former finance manager Serina Wee, requested a copy of what the prosecution considered the FIR, even if redactions were needed. Chief District Judge See Kee Oon suggested he take it up with the prosecution.
The trial is expected to resume next Wednesday with Ms Foong Ai Fang, who was involved in the audits of the church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)