Prosecutor says there is enough evidence for the defence to be called
THE
prosecution in the City Harvest Church case mounted a stinging rebuttal
yesterday as it sought to prove it had presented enough evidence for
the trial to continue.
Tearing
into arguments by the defence, Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh strived to
show again that the six accused had varyingly cooked deals to misuse
church funds, "fed a pack of lies" to auditors and "created false
appearances in City Harvest's books".
"There
is clearly enough evidence for the defence to be called," she said,
after taking the court through a summary of the prosecution's case.
She
was responding to defence lawyers who had argued that, despite 42 days
of trial since last May and 14 prosecution witnesses, the prosecution
had failed to show enough evidence for the charges against their
clients.
The defence wants the case thrown out. The judge will rule on that on May 5.
Church
founder Kong Hee and five others are accused of misusing about $50
million in church funds in total. While their lawyers had consistently
said auditors vetted and approved allegedly suspicious transactions, Ms
Chionh said relying on this defence was "misconceived at best and
disingenuous at worst" as the prosecution believes the accused hid
information from the auditors.
She
pointed to church auditor Sim Guan Seng, who had said earlier in the
trial that he would have "raised some red flags" about certain
transactions had he been privy to more information.
The defence said some of the information had existed in his audit firm Baker Tilly TFW's archives.
By
relying on the auditors' approval as a defence now, the accused were
"like the fraudster who manages to hide his own crimes, then tries to
rely on his success in hiding that crime to exonerate himself", Ms
Chionh said.
She
also disagreed with lawyer Andre Maniam's assertion that his client,
former finance manager Serina Wee, had not been dishonest and could not
be guilty of criminal breach of trust since the "church money was used
for church purposes".
While
part of the allegedly misused funds was spent to advance the pop music
career of Kong's wife Ho Yeow Sun, defence lawyers said the church had
accepted her music as a form of evangelism.
Ms Chionh said the evidence showed the money had been illegally taken from the church's building fund.
While
the defence lawyers said the prosecution had taken e-mails and messages
among the accused out of context and misinterpreted them, Ms Chionh
disagreed, adding that "the totality of the evidence was sufficient" to
call for the defence.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Documents revealed church leaders' conspiracies to commit CBT: Prosecution (CNA: 9 April 2014)
SINGAPORE: Emails and investigation statements from
six church leaders revealed the conspiracies they hatched to commit
criminal breach of trust, said prosecutors in the ongoing City Harvest
Church (CHC) case.
This was a rebuttal to defence lawyers who said no evidence had been produced to show they misused church funds.
Church founder Kong Hee and five of his deputies are accused of misusing millions from the church's building fund to boost the career of Kong's wife, singer Sun Ho.
This was done through alleged "sham bond investments" and by round-tripping the funds.
The prosecution said the six concealed the true nature of the transactions and documents from their auditors, which was intended to funnel the money from the building fund to fund Sun Ho's career.
Taken together, the documentary evidence laid bare elaborate steps taken to hide their offences.
This includes a falsification of the church's accounts.
The six leaders have relied on the auditors' passing of the relevant CHC accounts as a defence -- which the prosecution said is misconceived, because their submissions disregarded their own 'deceptive behaviour' in concealing information from the auditors.
Earlier, defence lawyer Andre Maniam, who is acting for Serina Wee, argued that the six leaders had not acted dishonestly... as they were using church money to further the church's objectives, through the Crossover Project, even though the money came from the building fund.
"It's not dishonest and there is no intent to cause wrongful loss to the church. Church money for church purposes, that's all this case is about," Mr Maniam added.
But the prosecution disputed this, saying a similar line of argument involving former Maris Stella High School principal Anthony Tan Kim Hock had not impressed the High Court... and his conviction for misappropriating money from the school's chapel building fund was upheld.
The prosecution also dealt with arguments from Mr Michael Khoo -- the lawyer for ex-church investment manager Chew Eng Han -- who said that several of the accused persons did not have the power to decide on use of church funds by themselves, as claimed by the prosecution.
He had said that if statements had not been recorded from other board members and they had not been called to court, an adverse inference had to be drawn that their testimony would have debunked the prosecution's case.
Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh said that by law, the prosecution need only call essential witnesses.
And in this case, she added that it's clear the board members were not needed to prove the prosecution's case.
"It's redundant given the emails and documentary evidence available. The prosecution has not or cannot be seen to have concealed witnesses for the purposes of hampering the defence," Ms Chionh noted, adding that the defence is well aware of such witnesses and is capable of calling on them, if need be.
The trial has stretched more than 40 days so far, and over the past two days, the court heard submissions from both the prosecution and the defence.
Chief District Judge See Kee Oon will deliver his decision on May 5 as to whether the six accused persons have a case to answer.
This was a rebuttal to defence lawyers who said no evidence had been produced to show they misused church funds.
Church founder Kong Hee and five of his deputies are accused of misusing millions from the church's building fund to boost the career of Kong's wife, singer Sun Ho.
This was done through alleged "sham bond investments" and by round-tripping the funds.
The prosecution said the six concealed the true nature of the transactions and documents from their auditors, which was intended to funnel the money from the building fund to fund Sun Ho's career.
Taken together, the documentary evidence laid bare elaborate steps taken to hide their offences.
This includes a falsification of the church's accounts.
The six leaders have relied on the auditors' passing of the relevant CHC accounts as a defence -- which the prosecution said is misconceived, because their submissions disregarded their own 'deceptive behaviour' in concealing information from the auditors.
Earlier, defence lawyer Andre Maniam, who is acting for Serina Wee, argued that the six leaders had not acted dishonestly... as they were using church money to further the church's objectives, through the Crossover Project, even though the money came from the building fund.
"It's not dishonest and there is no intent to cause wrongful loss to the church. Church money for church purposes, that's all this case is about," Mr Maniam added.
But the prosecution disputed this, saying a similar line of argument involving former Maris Stella High School principal Anthony Tan Kim Hock had not impressed the High Court... and his conviction for misappropriating money from the school's chapel building fund was upheld.
The prosecution also dealt with arguments from Mr Michael Khoo -- the lawyer for ex-church investment manager Chew Eng Han -- who said that several of the accused persons did not have the power to decide on use of church funds by themselves, as claimed by the prosecution.
He had said that if statements had not been recorded from other board members and they had not been called to court, an adverse inference had to be drawn that their testimony would have debunked the prosecution's case.
Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh said that by law, the prosecution need only call essential witnesses.
And in this case, she added that it's clear the board members were not needed to prove the prosecution's case.
"It's redundant given the emails and documentary evidence available. The prosecution has not or cannot be seen to have concealed witnesses for the purposes of hampering the defence," Ms Chionh noted, adding that the defence is well aware of such witnesses and is capable of calling on them, if need be.
The trial has stretched more than 40 days so far, and over the past two days, the court heard submissions from both the prosecution and the defence.
Chief District Judge See Kee Oon will deliver his decision on May 5 as to whether the six accused persons have a case to answer.
City Harvest case flows in natural manner: Prosecution (Today: 10 April 2014)
SINGAPORE — The dots in the prosecution’s case against six City
Harvest Church leaders connect in a natural, coherent and powerful
manner, with sufficient evidence establishing that each accused person
has a case to answer, said lead prosecutor Mavis Chionh yesterday.
Rebutting criticism from defence lawyers on Tuesday that its case was piecemeal and “cut and paste”, Ms Chionh reiterated the prosecution’s stand that church-building funds were used for sham investments designed by the accused to conceal the diversion of money for church co-founder Ho Yeow Sun’s secular music career, known as the Crossover Project.
The accused, who include Ms Ho’s husband and church co-founder Kong Hee, are charged with misusing S$24 million for sham bond investments and another S$26.6 million to cover up the first amount. This happened following the decision made in 2004 for Ms Ho to enter the United States market and the financial demands of producing music albums, said the prosecution.
Evidence shows the accused — Serina Wee, Tan Ye Peng and Chew Eng Han — planning for audio-visual company Xtron Productions to issue bonds, despite not having any official capacity in the firm, Ms Chionh said. They knew Xtron could not redeem the bonds and also discussed use of the proceeds from the bonds.
Emails also show that the other company that issued bonds to the church, Indonesia-based PT The First National Glassware, was but a conduit for transactions, added Ms Chionh. As for the “round-tripping” transactions involving the S$26.6 million, the accused fed external auditors “a pack of lies”, she charged. Auditors were told an agreement in which the church paid Xtron rentals in advance was genuine, but the accused were aware that, after using the funds to redeem bonds purchased earlier, nothing would be left for Xtron to seek a new building for use by the church, she said.
The defence had argued that the accused were honest and transparent with auditors. Kong’s deputy Tan Ye Peng, for instance, had sent a document to auditor Foong Daw Ching in 2008 detailing the church’s relationship with, and investment in, Xtron.
However, this disclosure did not happen in a vacuum, countered Ms Chionh. City Harvest’s board had grown worried after news of Ren Ci Hospital’s former chief executive Ming Yi being hauled to court and its auditors implicating their client.
She also disagreed with points raised yesterday by Wee’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Andre Maniam, that church funds had been used for church purposes and that, even if the accused had knowledge of wrong use of funds, this did not mean they had been dishonest. Dishonesty is a requisite for criminal breach of trust, among the charges faced by the accused.
Building funds are meant for building-related purposes and investments as allowed by the church’s constitution, Ms Chionh added. She brought up the recent case of former Maris Stella High School principal Anthony Tan Kim Hock’s misappropriation of the school’s chapel building fund. The High Court did not accept that since the school and Champagnat House, residence of the Marist Brothers here, were in essence owned by the Marist Brothers, it was reasonable for the former principal to think he could use the chapel-building fund for the renovation of Champagnat House.
But Mr Maniam said the case is different, as Champagnat House and the school are separate entities.
On the defence arguing on Tuesday that Tan, Kong and former board member John Lam could not be said to have dominion over church funds as the church board had collective dominion, the prosecution argued that they had a share of dominion.
Chief District Judge See Kee Oon is expected to rule on May 5 whether the defence needs to be called.
Rebutting criticism from defence lawyers on Tuesday that its case was piecemeal and “cut and paste”, Ms Chionh reiterated the prosecution’s stand that church-building funds were used for sham investments designed by the accused to conceal the diversion of money for church co-founder Ho Yeow Sun’s secular music career, known as the Crossover Project.
The accused, who include Ms Ho’s husband and church co-founder Kong Hee, are charged with misusing S$24 million for sham bond investments and another S$26.6 million to cover up the first amount. This happened following the decision made in 2004 for Ms Ho to enter the United States market and the financial demands of producing music albums, said the prosecution.
Evidence shows the accused — Serina Wee, Tan Ye Peng and Chew Eng Han — planning for audio-visual company Xtron Productions to issue bonds, despite not having any official capacity in the firm, Ms Chionh said. They knew Xtron could not redeem the bonds and also discussed use of the proceeds from the bonds.
Emails also show that the other company that issued bonds to the church, Indonesia-based PT The First National Glassware, was but a conduit for transactions, added Ms Chionh. As for the “round-tripping” transactions involving the S$26.6 million, the accused fed external auditors “a pack of lies”, she charged. Auditors were told an agreement in which the church paid Xtron rentals in advance was genuine, but the accused were aware that, after using the funds to redeem bonds purchased earlier, nothing would be left for Xtron to seek a new building for use by the church, she said.
The defence had argued that the accused were honest and transparent with auditors. Kong’s deputy Tan Ye Peng, for instance, had sent a document to auditor Foong Daw Ching in 2008 detailing the church’s relationship with, and investment in, Xtron.
However, this disclosure did not happen in a vacuum, countered Ms Chionh. City Harvest’s board had grown worried after news of Ren Ci Hospital’s former chief executive Ming Yi being hauled to court and its auditors implicating their client.
She also disagreed with points raised yesterday by Wee’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Andre Maniam, that church funds had been used for church purposes and that, even if the accused had knowledge of wrong use of funds, this did not mean they had been dishonest. Dishonesty is a requisite for criminal breach of trust, among the charges faced by the accused.
Building funds are meant for building-related purposes and investments as allowed by the church’s constitution, Ms Chionh added. She brought up the recent case of former Maris Stella High School principal Anthony Tan Kim Hock’s misappropriation of the school’s chapel building fund. The High Court did not accept that since the school and Champagnat House, residence of the Marist Brothers here, were in essence owned by the Marist Brothers, it was reasonable for the former principal to think he could use the chapel-building fund for the renovation of Champagnat House.
But Mr Maniam said the case is different, as Champagnat House and the school are separate entities.
On the defence arguing on Tuesday that Tan, Kong and former board member John Lam could not be said to have dominion over church funds as the church board had collective dominion, the prosecution argued that they had a share of dominion.
Chief District Judge See Kee Oon is expected to rule on May 5 whether the defence needs to be called.
Prosecution's case lacks sufficient evidence: Lawyers (ST: 9 April 2014)
Not enough proof for charges against clients, says defence
DEFENCE lawyers in the City Harvest Church case sought to prove that prosecutors had not done enough to even merit a defence as the trial resumed yesterday.
They questioned why no executive members of the church had been called to substantiate claims that they had been misled about the use of funds.
City Harvest auditors, trustees and directors of companies allegedly involved in sham deals were among the prosecution witnesses to give evidence.
But their lawyers said the prosecution had failed to show sufficient evidence for each of the charges against their clients.
Church founder Kong Hee and five others are accused of misusing about $50 million of church funds in total to finance Kong's pop singer wife Ho Yeow Sun's career and to cover this up.
Lawyer Michael Khoo, representing ex-church investment manager Chew Eng Han, said several of the accused did not have the power to decide on use of church funds by themselves, contrary to prosecution claims.
If statements had been recorded from the other board members but were not offered to the defence, and the members were not called to court, "the adverse inference must be drawn that if they had been called, their testimony would have debunked the prosecution's case", he said.
Mr Edwin Tong, representing Kong, said the prosecution had not called any church executive members to substantiate its claims.
"These (executive members) are not accused persons," he said. "The prosecution has chosen not to call any (executive members) to make good their point that they have been misled."
While Mr Khoo called on the prosecution to disclose whether it or the Commercial Affairs Department had taken statements from people other than those called as witnesses, Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh said he had "no legal basis" to make such a request.
The prosecution is expected to address the defence lawyers' arguments today after Mr Andre Maniam, representing former finance manager Serina Wee, wraps up the defence's arguments.
The lawyers also sought to show yesterday that the prosecution had misinterpreted e-mails and text messages between the accused or taken the communications out of context.
Mr Tong disagreed with the prosecution that sham investments were used to funnel the funds illegally.
Referring to one allegedly suspicious transaction, he said auditors were aware of "all the salient features" of the investment and two large law firms in Singapore had advised on it.
While the money from the transaction had gone to Ms Ho's music career, this was in line with the church's "widely embraced" mission of using it to evangelise, he said. "The truth is... no one misappropriated the money for their own use. No one has complained," he said.
The trial continues.
DEFENCE lawyers in the City Harvest Church case sought to prove that prosecutors had not done enough to even merit a defence as the trial resumed yesterday.
They questioned why no executive members of the church had been called to substantiate claims that they had been misled about the use of funds.
City Harvest auditors, trustees and directors of companies allegedly involved in sham deals were among the prosecution witnesses to give evidence.
But their lawyers said the prosecution had failed to show sufficient evidence for each of the charges against their clients.
Church founder Kong Hee and five others are accused of misusing about $50 million of church funds in total to finance Kong's pop singer wife Ho Yeow Sun's career and to cover this up.
Lawyer Michael Khoo, representing ex-church investment manager Chew Eng Han, said several of the accused did not have the power to decide on use of church funds by themselves, contrary to prosecution claims.
If statements had been recorded from the other board members but were not offered to the defence, and the members were not called to court, "the adverse inference must be drawn that if they had been called, their testimony would have debunked the prosecution's case", he said.
Mr Edwin Tong, representing Kong, said the prosecution had not called any church executive members to substantiate its claims.
"These (executive members) are not accused persons," he said. "The prosecution has chosen not to call any (executive members) to make good their point that they have been misled."
While Mr Khoo called on the prosecution to disclose whether it or the Commercial Affairs Department had taken statements from people other than those called as witnesses, Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh said he had "no legal basis" to make such a request.
The prosecution is expected to address the defence lawyers' arguments today after Mr Andre Maniam, representing former finance manager Serina Wee, wraps up the defence's arguments.
The lawyers also sought to show yesterday that the prosecution had misinterpreted e-mails and text messages between the accused or taken the communications out of context.
Mr Tong disagreed with the prosecution that sham investments were used to funnel the funds illegally.
Referring to one allegedly suspicious transaction, he said auditors were aware of "all the salient features" of the investment and two large law firms in Singapore had advised on it.
While the money from the transaction had gone to Ms Ho's music career, this was in line with the church's "widely embraced" mission of using it to evangelise, he said. "The truth is... no one misappropriated the money for their own use. No one has complained," he said.
The trial continues.
*****************Background Story *****************
About the case
CHURCH founder Kong Hee and five others face varying counts of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.
They allegedly misappropriated church funds of $24 million in sham bond investments in two companies run by long-time supporters - music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna - to bankroll the pop music career of Kong's singer wife Ho Yeow Sun.
They are also accused of trying to cover that up by "round-tripping" $26.6 million, so as to avoid the auditor's scrutiny.
Criminal breach of trust is punishable with a life sentence, or up to 20 years' jail and a fine. Falsification of accounts carries up to 10 years in jail, a fine, or both.
About the case
CHURCH founder Kong Hee and five others face varying counts of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.
They allegedly misappropriated church funds of $24 million in sham bond investments in two companies run by long-time supporters - music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna - to bankroll the pop music career of Kong's singer wife Ho Yeow Sun.
They are also accused of trying to cover that up by "round-tripping" $26.6 million, so as to avoid the auditor's scrutiny.
Criminal breach of trust is punishable with a life sentence, or up to 20 years' jail and a fine. Falsification of accounts carries up to 10 years in jail, a fine, or both.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
City Harvest lawyers say case against church is ‘piecemeal’ (Today: 9 Apr 2014)
SINGAPORE — The prosecutors in the trial of six City Harvest Church
leaders strung together email correspondence in piecemeal fashion,
charging the accused with a “cut and paste” conspiracy to misappropriate
church funds, said defence lawyers yesterday as they sought to show
that their clients had no case to answer.
They argued that evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to support charges against the accused. No losses have been incurred by the church and no prosecution witness called to the stand has been able to say what is, or is not, a sham investment, they added.
The prosecution wrapped up its case on Feb 10, after 42 days of hearings. Five of the six defence lawyers spoke yesterday, with Senior Counsel Andre Maniam, lawyer for Serina Wee, to argue before Chief District Judge See Kee Oon today before the prosecution responds. If the judge rules in favour of the defence, the charges against the accused could be dismissed, or they could be granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
The accused, who include church co-founder Kong Hee and its former investment manager Chew Eng Han, who has since left the church, face charges of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. They are accused of channelling S$24 million in church building funds into sham bond investments primarily for the music career of Kong’s wife and church co-founder Ho Yeow Sun, and then misappropriating another S$26.6 million to cover up the initial amount.
A key point the defence took issue with was dominion over church funds, an element that must be established for the offence of criminal breach of trust.
Various charges name Kong, his deputy Tan Ye Peng and former board member John Lam as having dominion, but the church’s board of directors consisted of about 10 individuals, said Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, Chew’s lawyer. Board membership in itself does not confer dominion, and the prosecution has failed to show evidence that church building funds had been entrusted to the three accused, said Mr Khoo and Senior Counsel Kannan Ramesh, who represents former finance manager Sharon Tan.
The defence lawyers also argued that the evidence on conspiracy and dishonesty was insufficient. Kong’s lawyer Edwin Tong argued that it has not been proven that his client intended and agreed to commit an illegal act; showing Kong agreed to enter into an investment is not good enough.
Disputing that the investments at the centre of the trial are sham, Lam’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, argued that there is no rule against risky or bad investments.
Prosecutors did not lead evidence from production company Xtron’s directors and PT The First National Glassware owner Wahju Hanafi that they did not intend to be bound by the bond service agreements, added Mr Khoo.
The charges of falsification of accounts have “no legs to stand on”, said Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan, who represents Tan Ye Peng.
Prosecutors had asked the church’s auditors from Baker Tilly if red flags would have been raised had they been privy to certain additional information. However, they did not question auditors about what would have been the right way to reflect allegedly falsified figures, Mr Sreenivasan said.
The prosecution’s case has been made up of “emails, emails, emails stitched together”, he charged. Prosecutors could say the accused must be asked to explain the emails, but “at this stage, you do not call the defence because of curiosity”, said Mr Sreenivasan.
They argued that evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to support charges against the accused. No losses have been incurred by the church and no prosecution witness called to the stand has been able to say what is, or is not, a sham investment, they added.
The prosecution wrapped up its case on Feb 10, after 42 days of hearings. Five of the six defence lawyers spoke yesterday, with Senior Counsel Andre Maniam, lawyer for Serina Wee, to argue before Chief District Judge See Kee Oon today before the prosecution responds. If the judge rules in favour of the defence, the charges against the accused could be dismissed, or they could be granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
The accused, who include church co-founder Kong Hee and its former investment manager Chew Eng Han, who has since left the church, face charges of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. They are accused of channelling S$24 million in church building funds into sham bond investments primarily for the music career of Kong’s wife and church co-founder Ho Yeow Sun, and then misappropriating another S$26.6 million to cover up the initial amount.
A key point the defence took issue with was dominion over church funds, an element that must be established for the offence of criminal breach of trust.
Various charges name Kong, his deputy Tan Ye Peng and former board member John Lam as having dominion, but the church’s board of directors consisted of about 10 individuals, said Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, Chew’s lawyer. Board membership in itself does not confer dominion, and the prosecution has failed to show evidence that church building funds had been entrusted to the three accused, said Mr Khoo and Senior Counsel Kannan Ramesh, who represents former finance manager Sharon Tan.
The defence lawyers also argued that the evidence on conspiracy and dishonesty was insufficient. Kong’s lawyer Edwin Tong argued that it has not been proven that his client intended and agreed to commit an illegal act; showing Kong agreed to enter into an investment is not good enough.
Disputing that the investments at the centre of the trial are sham, Lam’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, argued that there is no rule against risky or bad investments.
Prosecutors did not lead evidence from production company Xtron’s directors and PT The First National Glassware owner Wahju Hanafi that they did not intend to be bound by the bond service agreements, added Mr Khoo.
The charges of falsification of accounts have “no legs to stand on”, said Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan, who represents Tan Ye Peng.
Prosecutors had asked the church’s auditors from Baker Tilly if red flags would have been raised had they been privy to certain additional information. However, they did not question auditors about what would have been the right way to reflect allegedly falsified figures, Mr Sreenivasan said.
The prosecution’s case has been made up of “emails, emails, emails stitched together”, he charged. Prosecutors could say the accused must be asked to explain the emails, but “at this stage, you do not call the defence because of curiosity”, said Mr Sreenivasan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)