City Harvest trial: Cross-examination of church finance manager wraps (CNA: 29th Sept 2014)

SINGAPORE: The prosecution wrapped up its cross-examination of City Harvest Church (CHC) finance manager Sharon Tan on Monday (Sep 29), reiterating its case that she had conspired with other leaders to plan and execute a series of "round-tripping transactions".

Tan, who took the stand for the 12th day, is one of six leaders charged with misusing millions of dollars of church funds to boost the career of singer Sun Ho, the wife of CHC founder Kong Hee. They are accused of doing so through sham bond investments in two companies, Xtron and Firna, and then covering them up through a series of what the prosecution described as "round-tripping transactions".

These transactions would create the false impression that the sham bonds had been redeemed when the redemption was actually financed using the church's funds, the prosecution has charged.

On Monday, the prosecution showed the court an email thread dated November 2009 in which Tan and her co-accused, Chew Eng Han and Tan Ye Peng, discussed how much money the church needed to raise to rent space at Suntec Singapore Convention and Exhibition Centre.

In what the accused called "scenario planning", S$100 million was budgeted for the church to pay rental for the next 10 years to production company Xtron. However, Tan pointed out that the church would need to raise S$52.4 million to "cover" Xtron's "deficit".

This was because the church had earlier paid Xtron a huge amount as advance rental for it to secure premises for church services and activities. Tan said that part of the advance rental had already been spent on various transactions, including S$11.4 million in bonds by glassware manufacturer Firna.

She then proposed that the deficit be raised via the church's "Arise & Build" fund-raising campaigns. She also suggested that the church makes more payments to Xtron, for various services such as event management. Tan clarified in court that it was a "worst-case scenario planning", with the assumption that Xtron did not generate any income from producing Sun Ho's album.

'SCENARIO PLANNING' CLAIM, NOT A MAGIC WAND: PROSECUTOR

Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh however, said that the assumption was not stated in the email and that it was "funny" that Tan thought "waving the words 'scenario planning' around is like a magic wand that can somehow wave away all this incriminating information here".

Ms Chionh said the emails reveal that Tan was intent on making sure that the church makes payments to Xtron to "cover up the hole" or the deficit. She pointed to a subsequent email dated December 2009 from Tan to co-accused Serina Wee, who was handling the Xtron accounts then.

Tan told Wee that having redone the calculations, the deficit for the rental was S$44 million and not S$52.4 million. She had also written: "Will we still be doing this 10 years later???? Hahahahaha ..."

The prosecution alleges that "this" refers to finding ways and "doing scenario planning" to cover Xtron's deficit. However, Tan told the court that she was referring to Xtron working closely with the church to plan its cash flow.

Ms Chionh said that Tan knew the proposals to cover the deficit was just to buy time for Xtron so that she could "kick the problem down the road" and gain herself more time to "find more solutions to channel more of the church's funds to Xtron".

Ms Chionh also charged that Tan and Wee as well as Chew Eng Han and Tan Ye Peng were constantly working on ways to channel church monies to Xtron to make sure it could meet its liabilities. Following the end of the prosecution's cross-examination of Tan, her lawyer, Senior Counsel Kannan Ramesh will continue his re-examination on Tuesday.

City Harvest trial: Finance manager concedes her action may have deceived auditors (ST: 26th Sept 2014)

SINGAPORE - City Harvest Church finance manager Sharon Tan broke down on the stand on Friday, even as she conceded that information she had inserted into church board meeting minutes may have deceived auditors.

Choking up under cross-examination by Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh, the 39-year-old said: "Your honour, it might be seen like they are being deceived, but... it wasn't my intention."

Tan had inserted information into the document, dated Sept 12, 2009, that the board had approved "advance rental" payments to music production firm Xtron of $7 million per year for eight years - part of a plan to purge bonds held in the firm from the church's books.

The court heard that the information was false, as no such approval was received from the board on that day.

Tan is one of six people, including founding pastor Kong Hee, accused of misusing $50 million of church funds to boost the music career of Kong's wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, and covering up the misuse. The prosecution believes that all of the accused, except Tan, channelled money from the church's building fund into sham bond investments in Xtron, which is Ms Ho's management company, and glass manufacturer Firna. Four of them, including Tan, then allegedly devised transactions to clear the sham bonds from CHC's accounts to throw auditors off the scent.

Friday's hearing has centred on the church's book-keeping, with Tan taking the stand for the tenth day. This is the third time she has broken down on the stand.

CHC finance manager asked about altered minutes for board meeting (CNA:26th Sept 2014)

SINGAPORE: City Harvest Church finance manager Sharon Tan broke down on Friday (Sep 26), her eleventh day on the stand.

The 39-year-old was being questioned by Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh about the minutes that she had recorded of a board meeting  on Sep 12, 2009.

The minutes stated that the board had considered and approved advance rental to be paid to Xtron Productions at a rate of S$7million per annum over eight years, so the production house could help the church secure a venue for its growing congregation. But Tan admitted that the figures had not been brought up at that meeting and was only reported to the board after Sep 12, 2009.

Ms Chionh had questioned why it was difficult for Tan to reflect decisions that were made at the meeting in the meeting's minutes: "Why do you have to go back in time to insert the information in an earlier set of minutes?"

To that, Tan replied that the board had been informed at the meeting of the plan for advance rental to be paid and that "in essence, it was the same".

Ms Chionh then pressed on: "If that's what they said from the minutes, that the auditors understand that the board approved S$7million a year for eight years on Sep 12, 2009, that understanding has to be false, because no such approval of those figures happened on Sep 12, 2009. Correct?"

Tan said she could not "agree fully", although the prosecution repeated the question a number of times. Presiding Judge of the State Courts See Kee Oon then intervened: "If I read that statement there, I would understand that those figures were approved on Sep 12, 2009. Does this help you to understand the question? So what is your answer?" That was when Tan conceded the point. 

The prosecution then put its case that Tan inserted the information to deceive the auditors. Tan said: "It might be seen that they (the auditors) are being deceived but it wasn't my intention."

Her voice then broke as she cried, and the court session was temporarily adjourned. Since taking the stand, this is the third time that Tan has broken down in tears.

After the break, the prosecution continued its cross-examination, claiming the church's board had not told about the full advanced rental arrangement, as well as other transactions during the board meetings.

It is the prosecution's case that Tan, together with three other accused, Chew Eng Han, Serina Wee and Tan Ye Peng, had conspired to devise the series of "round-tripping" transactions, creating the false impression that sham bonds in Xtron and Firna had been redeemed, to defraud auditors into believing that the bonds were not an issue.

The trial continues on Monday.

25 September 2014 – DPP cross-examined Sharon (Morning session) (MrsLightnFriends: 26th Sept 2014)

Advance Rental

This is another challenge for me to write in my blog. I will call it the “two plans running in parallel” challenge. If you have been following my blog I only wrote about Eng Han’s cross-examination of Sharon on Kong’s confession letter.

This page is about DPP’s cross-examination of Sharon on 24 and 25 September 2014 (Morning session) and Eng Han’s cross-examination of Sharon on 19 September 2014.

When Eng Han cross-examined Sharon, he asked Sharon to open an email dated on 24 April 2009, claimed by Sharon Tan that Eng Han is aware of the content of the email.

Sharon’s Evidence-in-Chief on 16 September 2014

I need to bring you back to what happened during Sharon’s EIC on 16 September 2014. Mr Ramesh brought up a new email evidence in court. This is an email dated on 25 April 2009 that Sharon sent to Pastor Tan and Jacqueline Tan and forwarded to Serina Wee.
 

The content of the email is about John Lim’s concerns after he attended EOGM. Sharon wrote from A to 0 (15 concerns).

Sharon said that at that point in time, she was the finance manager of CHC and she should be concerned with matters relating to the finance or the accounts. But in terms of investment and bonds, she was not involved in structuring it or planning it and so she brought up to the respective persons to find a solution for what was listed in the email.

When Mr Ramesh asked her who are those respective persons? Sharon said it would be Pastor Tan, Serina and Eng Han.

Judge asked: “Sorry, Ms Tan, before we move on to that. Your last answer, you said that it would be Pastor Tan, Serina and Eng Han.”

Sharon: “Yes”

Judge: “Is Eng Han copied in this email?”

Sharon: “No, your Honour, but at that point in time I was aware that this matter was brought it up to him.”

Sharon’s EIC said that scenario 2 (See the table below) was a secondary consideration because of John Lim’s email.

Eng Han’s cross-examination of Sharon Tan on 19 September 2014

Note the sequence of events Eng Han brought Sharon through

1. Email dated 9 April 2009 sent by Sharon Tan to Ye Peng and John Lam.

One of the point in this email is Mr Sim Guan Seng hopes to see this Xtron issue being solved in this FY.

2. Sharon had the strong impression given by Mr Sim Guan Seng, that he wants the bonds off the book.

3. This audit issue related to valuation of the bond.  Sharon conveyed “Mr Sim Guan Seng wants the bonds off the book” to Eng Han.

4. Email dated on 25 April 2009 sent by Sharon to Pastor Tan and Jacqueline Tan and forwarded to Serina Wee. (John Lim’s 15 concerns)

The following email events triggered after 25 April 2009

Email Date	Property of Interest	Eng Han’s involvement	Who was involved in the planning
25 April 2009 E-501	Advance Rental with scenario 1 and scenario  2 For Riverwalk (Sharon Tan said typo error should be Expo)	Not in the loop	Sharon Tan, Jacqueline TanTan Ye Peng
2 May 2009 E-502	Advance Rental for Suntec	Eng Han suggested upfront rental to buy shares in JV Co which will buy Palm Oil (Suntec)	Sharon said EH spoke to her on the phone and she typed out Eng Han’s suggestion. Sharon sent to John Lam and Serina Wee.Then on 2 May 2:58pm Serina Wee sent to EH
2 May 2009, 2:58pm E-59	Advance Rental with scenario 1 and scenario 2 and scenario 3 For Riverwalk and Expo (Sharon Tan said typo error should be Expo)	Not in the loop	Serina to Sharon Tan.  What Pastor Tan asked for

EH: “So E-502 has to do with the Palm Oil deal. At the same time, this E-59 has to do with the Expo Riverwalk advance rental. Correct?

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour.”

EH: “So, really, there were two plans running in parallel at almost the same time. Correct?”

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour.”

<….questions and answers…>

Sharon: “Your Honour, that was why Eng Han’s solution was adopted in the end, because I am only a finance manager, Pastor Tan was only a pastor…”

EH: “Let’s move on to email E-57, just the first page, point number 1. This is sent from Serina Wee to yourself again. Serina Wee is asking: “Do we still want to go ahead with the scenarios we worked out to advance rental for Expo to redeem the Xtron bonds?”
 

So here is 14 May 2009, and Serina Wee is requesting do you go ahead with the scenarios that you have planned. And now it still involves advance rental for Expo. There is no Palm Oil being mentioned. Right? So this has to do with the alternative plan that’s running in parallel. Right?”

Sharon: “Yes”

<…. questions and answers…>

EH: “So it is clear to you that, in my communications with you, the ALRA was to be done only if we had a property acquisition?”

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour”

DPP’s cross-examination of Sharon Tan on 24 – 25 September 2014 (morning session).

Now we see what is the Deputy Public Prosecutor’s (DPP) position.

DPP opened the minutes that were recorded of the discussion with Mr Sim that he was concerned about finding out what the commercial rationale of the Amended Xtron Bond. There is no record of “Mr Sim wants to see the Xtron bonds redeemed and cleared from the books by the end of this financial year”.

DPP: “I put it to you, Ms Tan, that is a lie because your own counsel has not put to Mr Sim that he said to all of you at this meeting very clearly to clear the bonds off the book of CHC. It is just another lie that you have come up with in your evidence.”

DPP went through the same emails (John Lim’s concerns email, E-501, E502, E-59) with Sharon

DPP: “From what we see then, Ms Tan, isn’t it clear that you, Serina and Ye Peng were planning scenarios 1 and 2 from the perspective of Xtron raising enough funds to redeem the Xtron bonds and not from the perspective of the church deciding on an appropriate length of Expo lease to pay advance rental for?”

Sharon replied was she just worked out with Serina the visibility on the cashflow. She is not able to answer for Pastor Tan.

DPP: “You were not just being asked to act like a human calculator by Pastor Tan, right?……. So you are not just inputting figures, there is actually substantive thinking on your part as well, because that is what you were asked to do by Tan Ye Peng. Right?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I really didn’t put in any substantive thinking when the scenarios were given to me.”

<…. some more puts and answers….>

DPP: “I put it to you, Ms Tan, that again, you are not telling the truth about your involvement scenario planning, and you are trying to minimize your role in the scenario planning.”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”

In addition to the emails (John Lim’s concerns email, E-501, E502, E-59), the DPP brought up some Blackberry messages discussions, which Eng Han was involved.

The blackberry message dated 10 April 2009 (Eng Han sent to Ye Peng)
 

Eng Han wrote:
I have thought through the RTO vehicle plan. I think we can clear the bonds in Firna and Xtron. However for Xtron case we need the deposit from CHC for renting palm oil to help clear the big amount of crossover debts of $13m, as well as profit from selling Riverwalk to the RTO vehicle.

Other Blackberry messages were discussed.

<…. some puts and answers….>

DPP: “I put it to you, Ms Tan, that you took part in the scheme together with Ye Peng, Serina and Eng Han to create the appearance that the Xtron and Firna bonds had been redeemed early because you wanted to avoid disclosure and valuation issues in relation to these bonds, and also possible consolidation of the CHC and Xtron accounts in subsequent audits.”

DPP: “I put it to you, Ms Tan, that you took part in the scheme together with Ye Peng, Serina and Eng Han to create the appearance that the Xtron and Firna bonds had been redeemed early because you wanted to avoid disclosure and valuation issues in relation to these bonds, and also possible consolidation of the CHC and Xtron accounts in subsequent audits.“

DPP: “I put it to you that that is why you have lied to the court that it was Mr Sim who told you all to clear the bonds off the books. You lied because you want to hide the fact that it was you, Ye Peng, Serina and Eng Han who planned to remove these bonds from the books, to avoid disclosure, valuation and consolidation issues.”

DPP brought up another email dated 2 July 2009 that involved Serina Wee, Sharon Tan and Ye Peng.

In this email they were planning to redeem the $21.5m Xtron bonds using the following three methods:
1. Increase Expo rental to $35k per usage
2. Prepay Expo rental for 6-years
3. Sell Riverwalk

Other methods were discussed as followed:
1. General Funds to donate to other organization, which in turn engage Xtron services.
2. Increase retainer.
3. CHC to engage more services from Xtron.

DPP: “I put it to you, first of all, that what this email shows is that as far as you and Serina were concerned in doing this planning, what you wanted to make sure was simply that Xtron got enough money to redeem the Xtron bonds before the financial year end. So this advance rental payment was just a coverup story that was going to be used to justify pumping a lot of money into Xtron. Do you agree or disagree?

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”

<….questions and answers…>

Sharon confirmed that she was involved in coming up with the proposals but she cannot confirm with the DPP that the idea was from her.

DPP: “… you are evading the questions,…I will repeat it. Whether or not the idea spelt out … originated from you, the fact of the matter is you adopted it as part of the analysis you intended to send Pastor Tan as the plan for redemption of the Xtron bonds. Do you agree?

Sharon: “Your Honour, I never disagree that I adopted it as part of the analysis for me to send to Pastor Tan.  But it is not just solely for the redemption plan without holding Xtron to it liability.”

DPP: “With the $10.7m, Xtron would not have been able to fulfill the rental obligations to the church for the full advance rental period of six years.  Correct?”

Sharon disagreed with explanation.

DPP asked a similar question again getting Sharon to confirm what she wrote on the spreadsheet Xtron with $10.7m would only pay for 2.9 years of Expo rental.

Sharon replied: “Your Honour, based on simple math, yes.  Only $10.7m will be left in terms of case in Xtron’s book. But your Honour, my understanding was Xtron must continue to earn income in order to fulfill the advance rental agreement.

Judge: Ms Tan, the question is simple and very straightforward. It is simply to ask you to confirm what you have said in that email, which is the cash will only last 2.9 years of Expo rental, and that is $10.7m. So whether it is simple maths or more complicated maths, I don’t understand why you can’t just address the question directly.

Sharon apologized and agreed that the $10.7m would only last 2.9 years.

City Harvest Church leaders tried to "bamboozle" auditor: Prosecution (CNA: 26th Sept 2014)

SINGAPORE: At the City Harvest Church trial on Thursday (Sep 25), the prosecution said finance manager Sharon Tan was not the "innocent follower" that she tried to paint herself as, when it came to plans to use church funds to redeem sham bonds.

Tan was taking the stand for the tenth day. She is one of six church leaders who are accused of using millions of dollars from the church's building fund to buy sham bonds in two companies, Firna and Xtron.

Lead prosecutor for the case, Mavis Chionh, showed the court messages between Tan and co-accused Chew Eng Han, in which Tan proposed using a third party to redeem the Firna bonds. She had proposed using Pacific Radiance, a company linked to member John Lam who is one of those on trial.

In one message, Tan said that even if church auditor Mr Sim Guan Seng suspected that church monies were used to redeem the bonds, "he can't fault or pinpoint". The prosecution accused Tan and Chew of trying to "bamboozle" Mr Sim and not let him find out that church funds were used to redeem the Firna bonds.

Tan disagreed and said that she was worried about "disclosure" as she had the understanding that the drawdown from the Firna bonds would be used to support the Crossover Project, which involved church co-founder Sun Ho recording and launching secular music albums.

Finance manager accused of lying: City Harvest trial (ST: 25th Sept 2014)

Auditor didn't recommend purging of accounts: DPP

CITY Harvest Church (CHC) finance manager Sharon Tan was yesterday, in her eighth day on the stand, accused of lying in the trial involving alleged wrongdoing by church officials and staff.

The prosecution said Tan lied when she claimed it was an outsider - an auditor - who had recommended that the church purge its books of its bonds in music production company Xtron.

Tan is one of six people, including founding pastor Kong Hee, accused of misusing $50 million of church funds to boost the music career of Kong's wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, and covering up the misuse.

The prosecution said all the accused, except Tan, channelled money from the church's building fund into sham bond investments in Xtron - which manages Ms Ho's career - and glass manufacturer Firna. Four of them, including Tan, then allegedly devised transactions to clear the sham bonds from CHC's accounts to throw auditors off the scent.

Earlier in the trial, Tan had said the source of the transactions was the church's auditor, Mr Sim Guan Seng, who said at a meeting in April 2009 that he "doesn't like the bonds" and they should be cleared off the church's books.

But Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh challenged this, pointing out that it was not recorded in the minutes that he had said this at the meeting with deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng and board member John Lam.

Tan admitted it was not in the minutes, but maintained that Mr Sim had said this to her after the pastor and Lam left the meeting, and that she told them in an e-mail shortly after.

But DPP Chionh questioned how Mr Sim would have the power over church management to make this suggestion just because he did not like the bonds. Tan replied that, at the time, the mindset was to do what the auditors wanted.

DPP Chionh noted, however, that her e-mail to Tan Ye Peng and Lam did not mention that Mr Sim had told them to clear the bonds - further proof that she was lying about what the auditor had said.

Tan disagreed, pointing out how her e-mail stated that Mr Sim hoped to see "this (Xtron) issue being solved in this financial year". She said the statement referred to the Xtron bonds.

DPP Chionh said: "You are indulging in creative misinterpretation of the plain words of even your own e-mails in order to escape the lies that you have told about what Mr Sim supposedly said."

The DPP also repeatedly questioned Tan about why she would not admit to being the main contact for the audit team.

Auditors Foong Ai Fang and Mr Sim had testified that Tan was the point of contact when she took over as finance manager from co-accused Serina Wee. But Tan insisted that Mr Sim did not work with the audit team and had wrongly assumed she was the contact person.

DPP Chionh argued there was no reason for Mr Sim and Ms Foong to lie, and that Tan was simply trying to avoid being accused of more lies.

24 September 2014 – DPP cross-examined Sharon (MrsLightnFriends: 25th Sept 2014)

I find it a challenge to report what is happening in the court. The hearings seem to be going around in a circle. (I may write about the second half court’s session, related to advance rental after hearing more evidences.)

Today’s morning questioning is back to the 3 August 2008 Board minutes and the 5 August 2008 (the back dated 27 July 2008) Investment Committee minutes.

I summarized what was argued this morning related to para 4.6 of the board’s minutes.
 

Para 4.6 It was noted that the Investment Committee reviewed and approved that along with the bond agreement with Xtron (total of S$18m, 10 year convertible bonds) CHC have an option to buy Riverwalk at original cost.

Dates	DPP’s position	Sharon’s evidence	John Lam’s evidence
3 Aug 08 – Board meeting	When the board meeting was held, the IC had not yet met to review and approve the Xtron ABSA ($18m bond).	The IC meetng was present in the same meeting together with the board.  The board approved the bond agreement.	John Lam’s evidence on 15 July 2014 the paragraph 4.6 was a mistake. What was recorded in para 4.6 did not happen on 3 Aug 08.
5 Aug 08 –Investment  meeting	This meeting IC then reviewed and approved the Xtron ABSA.	Sharon asserted that the Investment Committee met on 5 Aug with the intention to assess the recoverability of the $13m, including the new Xtron ABSA.

DPP: “I suggest to you that, when we look at the email trial and we see how your falsely backdated investment committee minutes were vetted by John Lam, sent to Serina and then further sent by her to Ye Peng and Eng Han before they were provided to the auditors, these other persons also had the same intention as you, to give the auditors the impression that the church had already assessed the bonds to be a good investment even before the auditors raised queries. Do you agree or disagree?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”

Who were in control of how much and when to draw down on the Xtron and Firna bonds?

Sharon shifts position in answering to the DPP questions.
 

1. Yesterday’s evidence was Kong Hee, Ye Peng and Serina are the ones deciding when to draw down on the Xtron bonds because they know when money was needed for the Crossover.
 

2. Today’s evidence was the Crossover team decides when drawdowns have to be made, according to the funding needs of the Crossover, and after they have made the decision the Xtron and Firna directors are asked to sign, to approve the drawdown.

When being pressed further questions by DPP she said Serina told her that the Xtron and the Firna directors are actually the ones who approve each drawdown of the bonds.

DPP: “Ms Tan, from the emails and the BlackBerry messages that you have been shown, including (listed the email exhibits and Blackberry exhibits number) that the people who were in control of how much and when to draw down on the Xtron and Firna bonds were the people in charge of the Crossover Project, namely Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and Serina?”

Sharon asserted that the decisions to use the bond proceeds for the Crossover were independent decisions of the Xtron and Firna directors.

The DPP proved otherwise by retrieving the evidences from all the three Xtron directors.
 

All the three Xtron directors gave evidence in this trail that they were not in control of the drawdown on the bonds.

On 21 May 2013, Mr Koh Siow Ngea said “the church” made the decision to drawdown of the Xtron ABSA.

On 26 Aug 2013, Mr Choong Kar Weng said once the overall budget has been approved he leave it to Serina.
 

On 3 Sep 2013, Mr Wahju said the drawdown of the Xtron bonds, he leave it to Choong Kar Weng.

DPP: “Ms Tan, I put it to you that what the evidence I have taken you through show, clearly, is that the decisions as to how and when the bond proceeds were to be drawn down and used was left not to the independent decisions of the Xtron and Firna directors but were instead decided by the Crossover team of Serina, Ye Peng, Kong Hee and Eng Han. You can agree or disagree, and explain why you do so.”

Sharon disagreed and explained that her knowledge came from Serina.

Does AMAC need the approval of the board to invest in Firna bonds?

DPP: “Can AMAC go ahead to invest the church’s monies in Firna bonds without the board’s approval?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, technically, yes, but like what I said, AMAC has remained accountable when it comes to Xtron and Firna bonds, and there were approvals given.”

DPP: “What do you mean by “technically” AMAC has discretion to invest the church’s monies in Firna without the board’s approval?”

Sharon: “Based on the contract that CHC has with AMAC, that AMAC has the full discretion to invest, your Honour.”

DPP: “But what does the board require? What is the board’s understanding? Is AMAC permitted to go and invest $24.5m of the church’s monies in Firna bonds (Wahju) without the board giving it’s approval?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I can’t speak for the board but this was how it has been when I worked with the board, your Honour.”

DPP: “Can I put it to you, Ms Tan, that your evidence in the last few minutes has been an example of disingenuous shifting of position, and it is because you are trying to cover up the fact that you are lying when you say that the board was told about, discussed and approved the Firna bonds in August or September.”

DPP: “Incidentally, Ms Tan, you claim that, actually, Mr Chew Eng Han has discretion to invest in Firna bonds without board approval. But when Mr Chew cross-examined you and he put it to you that he only has discretion to invest the remaining balance of monies in the Deutsche bank account that is not set aside for Xtron and Firna bonds, you agreed with him. So, again, that is an example of how you shift position in your evidence, depending on what position you think is favourable to you at the time. Correct?”

Sharon disagreed.

I shouldn't have backdated minutes: Finance Manager (ST: 24th Sept 2014)

Called by the prosecution, City Harvest Church (CHC) finance manager Sharon Tan yesterday admitted she should not have backdated the minutes of a church board meeting.

But she insisted it was never her intention to trick auditors.

Tan is one of six accused, including CHC founder Kong Hee, facing charges of misusing church funds.

The claims include the church making sham investments worth millions in Xtron, an artist management firm, so the money could be used to illegally fund the secular music career of Kong's wife Ho Yeow Sun. As part of its case, the prosecution is trying to show that CHC was in control of Xtron, though Tan insisted they were independent of each other, even though she was involved in compiling the salaries of the firm's staff.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chiong presented to court the minutes of a 2008 CHC investment committee meeting, at which church memeber and Xtron director Koh Siow Ngea was present. Tan had, earlier in the trial, given evidence that she changed the date of the meeting so that it would have seemed to have taken place before Mr Koh got his position at Xtron.

"You are perfectly willing to falsify documents that you know are going to be shown to the auditors, if you think it is necessary to achieve a certain purpose," Ms Chiong put it to Tan.

She disagreed initially, before telling the court, "At that point in time, I was overly paranoid over the conflict of interest. Yes, Your Honour, in hindsight, I shouldn't have done it, but it was never my intention to defraud the auditors."

Ms Chiong also asked Tan why she had said in her statement to the Commercial Affairs Department that Xtron directors did not make major decisions, and were only "consulted". Tan claimed she expressed herself wrongly, due to her poor command of English.

Several times yesterday, Ms Chiong accused Tan, whose cross-examination continues today, of being untruthful, of not making sense and giving excuses.

Prosecution accuses CHC finance manager of "creative misinterpretation" of emails (CNA: 24th Sept 2014)

SINGAPORE: The City Harvest Church trial continued on Wednesday (Sep 24), with the prosecution accusing the finance manager Sharon Tan of "lying" and "creative misinterpretation" of her own emails.

Tan and five other church leaders are charged with using the church's building funds to buy sham bonds in two companies, glassware firm Firna and production house Xtron. On her third day of being cross-examined by the prosecution, Tan was questioned about certain investment decisions, which were not documented in the meeting minutes.

In one instance in 2008, Tan said the church board discussed and approved an investment of S$24.5 million in bonds by Firna, following a verbal presentation by co-accused Chew Eng Han, but their decision was not recorded in any board minutes.

Lead prosecutor for the case Ms Mavis Chionh put it that Tan was lying and that the board had not approved the decision. Ms Chionh asked: "Isn't it incredible that the City Harvest Church board can review, discuss and decide to approve an investment of a huge sum of up to S$24.5 million into Firna bonds, apparently without having seen any detailed reports, and apparently without bothering to minute any of this?"

Tan replied that this was "how the board works", and that it places its trust in fund manager Chew for any investment presentation.

The prosecution also contended that Tan conspired with three of the accused to make false entries in the church's accounts and transfer money to various companies to create the impression that the sham bonds had been redeemed.

But Tan maintained there was a legitimate reason for the redemption of the bonds. She said the church's auditor, Mr Sim Guan Seng from Baker Tilly, had said in a meeting in April 2009 that he wanted the church to "clear" the bonds off the church's books.

But this was also not recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The prosecution further pointed out that in a subsequent follow-up email Tan sent to co-accused Tan Ye Peng and John Lam, there was also no mention of this comment made by Mr Sim.

The prosecution said that Tan was lying and that Mr Sim had not made such a statement. But Tan pointed out that she had written that Mr Sim hoped to see the issue being resolved by the end of the year, which carried the same meaning as having the Xtron bonds cleared off the books.

The prosecution said that Tan was again indulging in "creative misinterpretation" of the plain words of her own emails to escape the lies she told about what Mr Sim supposedly said. 

(blogger's note: hopefully now she knows why she's being charged along with the rest)

23 September 2014 – DPP cross-examined Sharon (Morning Session) (MrsLightnFriends: 24th Sept 2014)

23 September 2014 – DPP’s cross-examination of Sharon

Today, in the morning, Sharon Tan was questioned about her evidence in court related to Xtron. In the afternoon she was questioned about her “state of mind” when she recorded the minutes, what she communicated to the auditor and the sources of funds for the Crossover Project.

How profitable Xtron was?
 

It was revealed in an email between the auditors Sharon and Serina, dated 1 August 2008, that Xtron has no good track record to-date making huge losses for the past few years,
 

2005: group loss of $1.35m and 2006: group loss of $1.64m.

Is Xtron and CHC related?
 

The DPP directed Sharon to open a minutes of an audit meeting that Sharon, Bao Ting, Pastor Tan and John Lam attended with Mr Sim.

In the meeting, Mr Sim asked: “In future, is CHC and Xtron related?  Significance influence?”

John Lam’s answer to Mr Sim was: “Common interest. Work together because of common objective. At the end of it, we will want to maintain it with arm length view, to maintain long term relationship. On different management funding, in negotiation, we clearly make sure we got favourable terms.”

In Sharon evidence-in-chief, she also told the court that Xtron is an independent company with commercially viable business. Xtron has directors who are business people, credible and will be able to enter into any negotiations needed with other government agencies or organisations.

The DPP pointed out that in August 2008 EGM, Pastor Kong presented to the Executive members about how Xtron must have a track record that is viable and a profitable company.

The DPP produced a new evidence of email from Sharon to Serina on 23 November 2006. There is no text in the email except for an Excel attachment that contains the gross salaries of quite a large number of individuals for the year 2005 and 2006.

The DPP established the facts that the accountant of the church prepared a spreadsheet that compiled information about not just the salaries of the church staff but also the salaries of the employees of Xtron and Attributes.

The DPP opened another email from Sharon to Kong Hee on 2 July 2008. This email is related to the July 0.5 month bonus. Sharon needed to seek Kong’s final confirmation before she could make the announcement to all the staff.

When the DPP queried her about whether “all the staff” refers to the staff of those seven organizations, including Xtron listed in the email. Sharon said she would only be referring to the announcement for the CHC staff and she gave her long explanation to the judge.

The DPP produced another new evidence of email from Sharon to Serina Wee in July 2009. In this email Angie Koh, Kenny Low and Robin Thor are in the loop.

“Dear all, we are currently reviewing all the staff’s salaries.

PLEASE email me by Tuesday 12 noon the salaries with component and scale breakdown of each staff.”

DPP asked: “Why was Meng How, the HR director of CHC reviewing the staff salaries of staff from Xtron and these other organisations?”

Sharon: “I can’t remember what this review of staff salary is about… there should be another email for me to explain better.”

DPP: “I had suggested to you that from these emails that you sent, it is clear that the church exercised a substantial degree of control and influence over Xtron’s payroll and it’s staff salaries. Agree or disagree? If you wish to explain, you can do so.”

Sharon disagreed with no explanation.

The DPP opened another email from Sharon to Pastor Kong on 11 January 2010. In this email, Sharon told Kong that she had been asked by Meng How to send him the overall organisation’s salary budget and percentage for his review.

DPP asked: “What is this overall organisation that you refer to?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I was referring to CHC and the other organisations that work closely with CHC.”

Sharon explained in court that what she and Mr Kong were doing was scenario planning for a cataclysmic scenario, where the church would need to absorb all the staff of all the organisations back into the church (as stated below).
 

The percentage of salary/net income is 33.05%, but Kong wanted the salary not more than 32.7%.

The organisations involved in this exercises are as followed:

• CHC
• CHCSA
• Xtron
• City Colleage
• O School
• Little Big
• Citycare
• APL
• Advante
• BBG

DPP: “I put it to you, Ms Tan, that you are lying when you claim that your proposals in your emails to Mr Kong for reducing the percentage figure were directed at City Harvest only.”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”

DPP: “I put it to you that what this email shows is, firstly, that you and Mr Kong viewed these other organisations, including Xtron, as part of one overall whole entity, and that is why you have included them in this exercise. Secondly, what this email also shows is that Kong Hee exercised a certain degree of control and influence over the salary costs of these other entities, and that’s why he was able to tell you to get the total figure below a certain amount. You can agree or disagree, and then we will move on.”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”

Crossover budget Projection and Xtron bonds drawndown
 

The DPP opened an email from Serina to Sharon and Eng Han on 14 February 2008.

DPP: “…this drawdown schedule will be finalized when Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng finish working on the projections for the Sun Ho’s album. Yes?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I’m never involved in the projections for the Crossover Project.”

DPP: “I’m not asking you about the projections and your involvement in the projections. I’m asking you to confirm that, on the basis of this email, which you received from Serina, you would have understood that the drawdown schedule for the Xtron bonds would be finalized when Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng finished working on the album projections. Yes?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I wanted to explain that I was never involved in the process of this whole Crossover project. But based on what Pastor Kong had mentioned, that he would have gone through the projections with Wahju.”

<… questions and answers …>

DDP: “I put it to you, Ms Tan, that you are being untruthful in your answer and trying to avoid what is clearly stated in the email itself.”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree, because beyond this email there might be other conversations that I would understand how the process would be.”

<… questions and answers …>

DPP: “I put it to you, Ms Tan, that what this email shows is that the drawndown on the Xtron bonds was controlled by Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng, and depended on the album launch. And you are aware of this from the email itself. The only reason why you are pretending not to understand what the email says is because you are now trying to dissociate yourself with what it shows.”

The DPP opened another email from Serina to Sharon and copied to Tan Ye Peng on 29 June 2008. Before that, Sharon has asked Serina to give her the projection for the Xtron bonds drawndown.

Serina reply to her is she has given what she has “But let me discuss with Pst Tan as we are in the midst of finalizing the album budget then I can have a better picture of when we need to drawn down.”

<… questions and answers …>

DPP: “I put it to you, Ms Tan, that far from the process being, as you claimed opaque to you, it is clear from the email itself that you would have understood that the drawdown on the Xtron bonds was dependent on the album budget which was being controlled by Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and Serina. And that, therefore Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and Serina were effectively controlling the drawdown schedule. You can agree or disagree.”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”

The DPP opened another email, where Sharon and Serina were asked by Ye Peng for her views on a proposal to rent the Riverwalk premises to the Singapore Turf Club.

<… questions and answers …>

DPP questioned Sharon: “If Xtron and CHC were two separate and independent entities transacting at arm’s length, you would not have regarded income Xtron earns from the church as “earning from ourselves”. Agree or disagree?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree because the transaction would still be at arm’s length. Sorry your Honour, I don’t understand the “earning from ourselves’ would apply to whether we are independent entity or transactions.”

<… questions and answers …>

DPP: “I suggest to you that the series of numerous emails we have seen this morning show that you know that Xtron was not independent of the church and you were aware that Xtron was viewed by yourself and your co-accused as being part of a whole entity. You can agree or disagree.”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”

CHC had substantial control over Xtron payroll: Prosecution (CNA: 24th Sept 2014)

SINGAPORE: City Harvest Church had a "substantial degree of control and influence" over the payroll and staff salaries of production company Xtron, said Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh on Tuesday (Sep 23), as she continued her cross-examination of the church's finance manager Sharon Tan.

This was part of the prosecution's continuing bid to show that Xtron was a shell company controlled by the church to funnel church monies. Tan and five other church leaders are accused of misusing church funds, to finance the pop music career of Ms Sun Ho, the wife of founder Kong Hee.

The court was shown an email dated July 2008, in which Tan had asked co-accused Kong to confirm that staff would be given a half-month bonus and inflation component. Xtron was listed as one of the organisations included in this "scheme". 

To that, Tan replied that the organisations showed "interest and indication" that they may want to follow how much the church was giving "as a guide". The prosecution argued that Tan was being "untruthful" a number of times and that her explanation was just a "convenient excuse".

For example, on Mar 23, 2009, Tan sent a message using her BlackBerry phone to one of the co-accused, Deputy Senior Pastor Tan Ye Peng. In the message, which referenced co-accused Serina Wee (then the accountant working on the Xtron cashflow), Sharon Tan wrote: "Serina said that need to find another $1million per year to extend the bonds. I suggested that CHC can give a discount in interest for those extended years. I do not see any issue in it." 

The prosecution questioned Tan if she meant that Xtron needed to extend the bond repayment period, and that it needed to find another $1million to pay off the bonds. However, Tan disagreed and said the "discussion did not happen at the end of the day, so it was really another scenario-planning and budget planning".

The prosecution then put it that Tan was "being untruthful" and "trying to explain away" her statements because she realised that the message was evidence that funds flows between Xtron and the church were "treated very much as money going from one pocket to another".

In Tuesday's court session, Tan also acknowledged that "on hindsight", she should not have backdated the minutes of an investment committee meeting to 29 July 2008 when it was actually held on Aug 5.

Tan said she did so to reflect the date that one of the attendees, Koh Siow Ngea, was appointed as a director of Xtron, to avoid any "related party disclosure". 

The prosecution claimed that Tan backdated the minutes because auditors had asked on Aug 1 for an assessment on Xtron's ability to repay some bonds it had issued. The church had not done the assessment until it met on Aug 5. 

The prosecution said that Tan is seen as being "perfectly willing to falsify documents" that will be shown to auditors, if she thought that it was necessary to achieve a certain purpose. To that, Tan said she was "overly paranoid over the conflict of interest" and it was never her intention to defraud the auditors.

22 September 2014 – DPP cross-examined Sharon (MrsLightnFriends: 23rd Sept 2014)

DDP’s cross-examination of Sharon on 22 Sep 2014

Related to the boards minutes

Sharon said the Crossover Project is a sensitive issue. Therefore, she could not record it in the board minutes.

She further explained that this is the direction from the board to remain as discreet as possible when it comes to the financial support of the Crossover Project.

DPP: “You received a direction from the board not to record anything in the board minutes about how the bond proceeds are used?”

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour.”

DPP: “Who on the board directed you not to record anything in the board minutes about how the Xtron bond proceeds are used?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, this is a general consensus, and the board secretary signed off. He was aware of what has been discussed during board meeting and what I recorded in the board minutes.”

DPP repeated the question again as Sharon is not answering to her question.

<some questions>

Sharon then said that when she took over from Serina, she instructed her not to record in the board minutes and that is a direction from the board.

When being pressed further questions by DPP, Sharon said that she could not really remember what Serina had told her.

In Sharon’s earlier answer she said that the direction given to her was that she must not record in the board minutes anything about how the bond proceeds are used. When being further questions by DPP she said that she was told there is no need for the board minutes to record how the bond proceeds were used.

Then DPP said: “I put it to you, Ms Tan, that you are being disingenuous in your evidence now.”

<some questions>

DPP: “Well, if that’s the case, the auditors already know, and the board knows, then there’s obviously no sense in you being given this direction not to record in the minutes of board meeting anything about how the bond proceeds were used. Correct?”

Sharon: “Correct, your Honour. That’s why I said on the hindsight we should have minuted down.”

DPP: “So on hindsight, the instructions that Serina gave you made no sense.”

Sharon: “Your Honour, may be at that time, when the instruction was given make a lot of sense, because all we wanted was to keep the Crossover Project very discreet.”

<some questions>

DPP: “May I put it to you, Ms Tan, that the answers you have given about what can and cannot be recorded in the board minutes of meeting and why are not truthful, and they show that you have been shifting your position according to what you perceive to be a favorable position to take in your evidence.”

Sharon disagreed with reason and insisted that the minutes are accurate information. She said on the hindsight everything should be minuted down to be more complete.

Related to Auditors

DPP said it is the duty of the church’s finance manager to assist the church’s management to make sure that its financial statements are properly drawn up and give a true and fair view of the church’s state of affairs in that particular financial year. And Sharon who was the financial manager and also a member of the audit committee, she would have quite a lot of interaction with the audit team.

DPP reminded Sharon that when Tiang Yi and Sim gave evidence, they told the court that during the audit, the auditors will ask for supporting documents for transactions that are looking at, but they will not normally go behind the documents to investigate whether the document is genuine and authentic. Mr Sim also testified that if he’s given minutes of meeting, he would assume that those minutes are the actual records of what transpired during the meetings.

DPP: “Basically, if they are given false documents, then they will be defrauded into signing off on the financial statements on the basis of documents which don’t give a true and fair view of the church’s affairs.”

Sharon: “That’s a fair statement, your Honour.”

Related to the advance rental and redemption of bonds

DPP Mavis, tendered new evidences that was recovered from Sharon’s blackberry phone.

These are messages between Sharon, Eng Han, Serina and Ye Peng.

DPP requested Sharon to look at Mr Chew’s message. In the many messages, one of the message is Mr Chew talking to Sharon about the plan to pay advance rental to Xtron.

DPP: “Why do you say to Eng Han here that there may be a problem, the same Mr Sim is doing XPL accounts so we will know where the money goes to? Why is this a problem?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, what happened was this conversation between Eng Han and myself, we were discussing on the advance rental to be given to Xtron, and at the same time Xtron would be able to use the advance rental to invest into Firna bonds. So at that point in time, I was concerned with regards to disclosure, because even after we do the redemption, if Mr Sim sees that Xtron invests into Firna again, then he will want to know what is this Firna investment about.”

<some questions>

DPP: “Mr Chew responds to your concerns about there may be a problem…”

Mr Chew wrote: “That’s okay. We have sound reason to do it… we get lawyers to draft agreement between CHC and Xtron.”

Sharon wrote: “My concern for Mr Sim is he will know the same money given to Xtron is used to buy Firna contract. No so much of the building issue.”

Mr Chew replied: “Xtron will buy the rights from Ultimate Assets, not Firna. He won’t know the link between Firna and UA.”

DPP: “If we look at these messages between you and Mr Chew, Mr Chew is suggesting that the transactions be documented and that you all get lawyers to provide the necessary legal documentation. But you, clearly are worried that the suggestion is not going to work, because you go on to say “my concern for Mr Sim is he will know the same money given to Xtron is used to buy Firna contract.” Can I suggest to you, Ms Tan that what we see here is Mr Chew making a suggestion that the transactions of advance rental to Xtron subscribes to Firna bonds, and so on, be documented. My suggestion is that his proposal of documentation is really intended only as a cover story to provide an appearance of legitimacy for these transactions. And it’s clear that you know, because you go on to express further worry …”

Sharon disagreed. She said: “…. the contract that Eng Han was referring to is the advance rental license agreement. And this is for giving advance rental to Xtron to secure a building for the church… it is not something that was thought up just in order to redeem the Xtron or Firna bonds.

<some questions>

DPP: “….What you really concerned about here was Mr Sim finding out that advance rental from CHC had been channeled into the redemption of the Firna bonds. That’s what you were concerned about. You can agree or disagree.”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree because he would still be able to find out that the books will be open to him. Xtron has used the advance rental to purchase the Firna bonds.”

<some questions related to SOF10 and SOF11>

DPP said that the four accused (Sharon, Eng Han, Serina and Ye Peng ) did not want Mr Sim to know the truth about where the money invested by the church in SOF10 and 11 would go. And that was why Sharon was anxious that the SOF investments in T10 and T11 should be redeemed before Mr Sim audited the books, so that he wouldn’t question them.

Sharon disagreed with DPP and asserted that T10 and T11 still remain in the CHC book of FY2009 and Mr Sim will be able to see it.

Manager grilled on phone texts: City Harvest trial (ST: 23rd Sept 2014)

CITY Harvest Church (CHC) finance manager Sharon Tan came under intense cross-examination yesterday by the prosecution, who grilled her on her role in the alleged wrongdoing by church officials.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh pointed to snippets of text conversations saved on Tan's BlackBerry device which alluded to fears that the auditor might uncover something he was not meant to.

Some time in 2009, Tan wrote to the church's fund manager, Chew Eng Han: "There may be a prob...The same Mr Sim is doing the XPL (Xtron Productions Limited) accounts. So he will know where the money is going to."

The auditor, Mr Sim Guan Seng, had oversight of the books for both the church and Xtron, one of the companies in which the church allegedly made sham investments so as to fund the music career of founder Kong Hee's wife, Sun Ho.

Tan, Chew, Kong and three others are accused of misusing some $50 million of church funds for the secular music career of Ms Ho, and then covering it up.

It is the prosecution's case that the church made sham investments in Xtron and Firna, a glassware company owned by a longtime church member, and then engaged in what the accounting industry calls "round-tripping" to hide the irregularities from auditors.

Asked why it was a "problem" that the auditor was looking at both books, Tan said she was concerned that the Crossover project, which was meant to use Ms Ho's pop music to evangelise to non-Christians, would be "revealed".

She disagreed, however, when Ms Chionh then asked whether she meant that she did not want Mr Sim to know where the money was going.

Tan maintained she was worried about "disclosure", but did not elaborate on what she meant by that.

DPP: So, if I understand your evidence correctly, what you are saying is that, in order to keep the Crossover Project as secular as possible, we have to be discreet about the fact that the Xtron bonds were drawn down for use on the Crossover Project. Is that correct?

Tan: Yes, Your Honour.

DPP: Let me try one more time. If Xtron is an independent commercial entity, then why would the fact that it has independently made a decision to use its bond proceeds on the Crossover Project make the Crossover Project not secular or less secular?

Tan: Your Honour, because the investment comes from the church.

Tan, who has been cross-examined on the stand for four days, also maintained that she was instructed by the church's board not to record Xtron's negotiations for securing premises for a place of worship in meeting minutes, as they were "sensitive", but was not able to say why they were sensitive.
She later conceded that the missing information should have been recorded.

In his 90-minute cross-examination, former finance manager Serina Wee's lawyer, Mr Andre Maniam, said the investments were planned by Chew, and that Tan and Wee were mere "facilitators.
Tan agreed.

 She continues on the stand today.

City Harvest trial: Phone messages of church's finance manager under scrutiny (CNA: 23rd Sept 2014)

SINGAPORE: City Harvest Church's finance manager Sharon Tan was queried about a series of messages on her phone, namely on advance rental given by the church to production house Xtron, in the City Harvest trial on Monday (Sep 22).

It was revealed that the money was used to buy bonds by glassware company, Firna. This was Tan's seventh day on the stand, and she was cross-examined by lead prosecutor for the case Mavis Chionh.

Tan and five other church leaders are accused of using the church's building funds to buy sham bonds in two companies, Firna and Xtron. Tan had copied messages between herself and co-accused, Chew Eng Han, Serina Wee and Tan Ye Peng, onto a document in the memo application on her BlackBerry phone.

Prosecution referred to a message where Tan highlighted a potential problem - that the church's auditor Mr Sim Guan Seng, from accounting firm Baker Tilly, was handling the accounts of Xtron, and so would know about the related transactions.

It is the prosecution's case that Tan was trying to hide that advance rental from the church had been channelled into the redemption of Firna bonds. However, Tan maintained that the auditors would still have knowledge about the transactions as they had access to both the accounting books of Xtron and the church.

18 September 2014 – Sharon (Round Up) (MrsLightnFriends: 20th Sept 2014)

Sharon’s charges

In the last 4 days, Mr Ramesh and Sharon have gone through in great detail transactions of Advance Rental, SOF10 ($5.8m) and SOF11 ($5.6m), the redemption of the Xtron bonds under the amended Xtron BSA (Bond Subscription Agreement) and the Firna bonds.

Sharon has been charged with entering into a conspiracy with Pastor Tan, Mr Chew Eng Han and Ms Serina Wee to dishonestly misappropriate monies from the church through these transactions. And she is also charged with falsifying the church’s accounts in furtherance of her crime.

On 18 September 2014, Mr Ramesh rounded up Sharon’s EIC with the following broad stroke questions

1. You have testified that the board was advised on 18 Jul 09 and 12 Sep 09 board meetings of a plan for the redemption of Xtron bonds under the Xtron ABSA and bond under the Firna BSA.
2. You said that the redemption plan involved the use of advance rental drawn from the church’s Building Funds.
3. As part of that plan, there was also a plan to acquire a substantial commercial property for the church.
4. You said that the property was always a vision, a dream of the church from very early days.
5. You also have said that the vision or the need for the property had become somewhat pressing by the time Jul or Sep 09. That property at various time was described as Palm Oil.
6. There were some other properties like Crude Oil and so on, but Palm Oil was the focus, and Palm Oil was Suntec.
7. You also have said, “I believe, that the board was told that the redemption of the bonds was necessary because of concerns raised by the new engagement partner from the auditors, Mr Sim Guan Seng.”
8. You and everyone else (refers to the board, the audit committee and the investment committee, Wahju and Kar Weng) were given the impression that Mr Sim wanted the bonds redeemed in that financial year. If the bonds were not redeemed, that could create issues that could jeopardise the efforts to acquire the commercial property. In particular, in your mind, it could expose the relationship between the church and Xtron and that was a matter of some confidentiality.
9. You have said quite clearly that the board agreed and approved the redemption plan. The board was told and had been okayed by Mr Foong Daw Ching. You placed significance weight on that.
10. You have also said that in your mind the bonds under the Xtron BSA, ABSA and the Firna bonds were genuine and duly approved transactions by the board.
11. These investments were managed by Mr Chew Eng Han who was represented to you by Pastor Kong and whom you thought was a sound investment man and a trusted member of the church.
12. So in your mind, I think this is what you have testified, the redemption of the bonds, Xtron and Firna, was 1), to address Mr Sim’s concerns, 2), this redemption, in so far as Xtron was concerned, a classification of debt to advance rental. And in so far as the Firna debt was concerned, a refinancing.
13. In your mind, all of these were legitimate and the church was not suffering as a result.

Ramesh: “In your mind, Ms Tan I am only interested in your mind, with whose authority or with whose blessings or approval were you administering these transactions?

Sharon: “Your Honour, in my mind, I received the authority and approval from the board.”

She further said: “Your Honour, for SOF10 and SOF11, it was told by Eng Han to me that these are investments made by the church to AMAC into SOF. And in essence it would also be the same as what was presented to the board on July and September. And eventually it was brought up to the board and approved by the board on 31 Oct 09. Your Honour, this is not the only time we made an SOP investment. There were previous tranches that were being made as well, and I have indicated them as an investment entry in CHC book. For the redemption of the Xtron and Firna bonds, your Honour, this whole transaction was done with the motivation of just wanting to resolve an issue that was being brought up by Mr Sim, that he doesn’t like the bonds, he wants to keep the books simple.”

Sharon’s sob story

Ramesh: “Do you have children?”

Sharon: “Yes your Honour. I started my family in this church and right now I have three sons.”

Ramesh: “How old are they?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, they are 11, 6 and 4.”
{started sobbing}

Ramesh: “Are they members of the church?”

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour, and they are happily growing up in this church.”

Ramesh: “…You got to know the Lord when you first joined the church. Right? was this a significant even in your life?”

Sharon: “This is my first church and my only church.”

Ramesh: “Why is this significant? Can you just briefly tell us?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, this is the church that I grew up in, the values, everything that is me right now is learnt from and been grown from this church. I got to know my friends, my husband, started my family with three kids. And your Honour, from 15 to 25 it’s about 10 years and from 25 to 35 I have the privilege to work in the church until the day that we got raided, your Honour. But I was thankful that I had another two years before the charge came. And your Honour, in all these years of working in church, your Honour, I never have intention to cause any loss to the church. Never at all. And your Honour, it was all done for the furtherance of the Crossover Project and the building, which is for the church. Your Honour, my story and information that was given to the CAD remains the same, and I believe that I have been consistent. Your Honour, this is my only story, and I do not have another story to tell. That’s all, your Honour.”

…

Sharon: “Your Honour, I am not perfect and there are many things that I still need to learn, many things that I’ve done may not seems to be the best method administratively, (but your Lord), but your Honour, I never have any intention to cause any loss to the church.”

18 September 2014 – Kong’s Confession Letter (Sharon) (MrsLightnFriends: 21st Sept 2014)

Mr Lee’s cross-examination of Sharon on 18 Sep 2014

 (Mr Lee is another lawyer representing Kong Hee)

Sharon Tan said that she was at the Drew & Napier office premises on 3 June 2010. She saw that Pastor Kong was working on the document.

She agreed with Mr Lee that Tan Ye Peng, Serina Wee and Teo Meng How were present in the office because the CAD was interviewing them.

Mr Lee: “Do you recall Pastor Kong ever informing you what was he working on, on that computer, on 3 June?”

Sharon: “Yes, I did, your Honour.”

Mr Lee: “Do you recall Pastor Kong informing you that he was working on a document in consultation with Jimmy Yim to be handed over to the authorities at that time?”

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour.”

Mr Lee: “Do you recall either yourself or perhaps Serina Wee helping him with certain information that he required whilst he came up with this document?”

Sharon: “Yes your Honour.”

Eng Han’s cross-examination of Sharon on 18 Sep 2014

Chew: “You also gave evidence that Pastor Kong told you that this (confession letter) was to be handed over to CAD?

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour.”

Chew: “Did he tell you the purpose for handling it over to CAD?”

Sharon: “Yes, he did, your Honour.”

Chew: “What was the purpose?”

Sharon: “That Jimmy Yim has advised him to take the rap for everyone, your Honour.”

Chew: “So did he mention the words that the letter would state that he would take the rap for everyone?”

Sharon: “I cannot recall this, your Honour.   I mean I cannot recall if Pastor have mentioned to me.”

Chew: “You just said that Jimmy Yim has advised him to take the rap for everyone…”

Sharon: “Yes”

Chew: “So this is what you understood at that time?’

Sharon: “Yes”

Chew: “Which means, then Pastor Kong gave you the impression?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I saw him writing the confession letter, and we were helping him with some information that he needed. And I had that understanding that he needed. And I had that understanding that Jimmy Yim has asked him to take the rap for everybody, your Honour. In my conversation with Jimmy Yim, he also mentioned that they were out to get Pastor, not the rest of us. Your Honour, I remember that comment made by Jimmy Yim.”

Chew: “Thank you. Did he show you the letter?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I saw him preparing the letter, and at certain point in time, I mean, I saw the contents of the letter, your Honour.”

Chew: “Did you see the last section of the letter where there was a plea? Do you need to turn to it?”

Sharon: “Yes, I need”

Chew: “On the last page. Do you see the section My Plea?”

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour.”

Chew: “Was that shown to you?”

Sharon: “I cannot recall, your Honour.”

Chew: “So what did you see then was it all of the factual parts about the Crossover?”

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour.”

Chew: “Was anyone else shown the contents?”

Sharon: “The full content or ?”

Chew: “Or some of it”

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour”

Chew: “Ms Tan, at the time of this raid, this was 3 June, did you think it was likely that the CAD will let all of us go except Pastor Kong?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, at that point in time, we were all just raided, and I don’t think I never go into such deep thoughts at that time. I mean, we were all feeling a lot already, so when Pastor wanted to take the rap, I think we were more sad than to think about whether the rest of us will be let go.

Chew: “Would you agree at that time there was a fair chance that at least several of us would be implicated?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, can I ask Eng Han to clarify the question again?”

Chew: “What did you think would be the chances that the CAD would just go for Pastor Kong and that all of us would be stopped, there won’t be any more questioning for us?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I am not a law enforcer. I can’t comment on that.”

Chew: “I just have on last question on this. Ms Tan you and I are co-accused.”

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour.”

Chew: “If you wanted to do a confession letter for transactions which many of us are involved, wouldn’t you have shown the content of that letter to us first, to make sure that we don’t get wrongly implicated? Would you have done that?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, that is a hypothetical question.”

Chew: “Okay, it’s all right.”

18 September 2014 – Tan cross-examined Sharon(22nd Sept 2014: MrsLightnFriends)

Mr Tan’s cross-examination of Sharon on 18 Sep 2014

(Mr Tan is representing John Lam)

Sharon’s EIC said that she attended the board meetings with Serina Wee from 15 February 2007.

During the cross-examination, Sharon said that she only took over the responsibility of keeping the minutes for the CHC board including investment committee, after December 2007.

Sharon: “Your Honour, but pretty much under the guidance.”

Judge: “Under the guidance of who?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, that would be made of, in general… I would still be under the guidance of Serina, but there will be a few others who will contribute and guide me along.”

Sharon said it would include John Lam as well. When being asked further questions by John Lam’s lawyer, Sharon agreed with him that Mr Nicholas Goh, who is the chairman of the committee, also guided her in writing the minutes.

(Note: Sharon’s EIC showed email proof that this back dated investment committee minutes was vetted by John Lam.)

After some questionings, Sharon said that she was overly concerned about the related-party transaction and conflict of interest issues. Therefore, after discussion with Serina, she took it upon herself to change the date to 29 July 2008.

Mr Tan went through the content of the investment committee minutes, Sharon’s hand written notes and the board minutes with Sharon.

Sharon was the minute taker. She has some hand written note evidences that proved Xtron, Firna, advance rental and redemption of the bonds were indeed brought up to the board.

She did not minute down in details what was discussed in the meeting, especially the approval. She explained in court that the approval for Xtron to invest into Firna should be from the Xtron directors. 

She only recorded the necessary portions in the CHC board minutes.

City Harvest finance manager maintains investments made by church were legitimate (18 Sept 2014: CNA)

SINGAPORE: City Harvest Church finance manager Sharon Tan maintained on Thursday (Sep 18) that investments made by the church were legitimate, when questioned by her lawyer during her fifth day on the stand. 

Five other City Harvest Church leaders are accused of using the church's building funds to buy sham bonds in two companies, Firna and Xtron. Tan allegedly conspired with three of them to make false entries in the church's accounts, to transfer money to various companies in order to create the impression that the sham bonds had been repaid with interest. 

Tan said the plan to redeem the Xtron and Firna bonds had been approved by the church's board in 2009, and the church's audit committee and investment committee had also been kept informed about the plan. 

She posed this question: if the bonds were bogus bonds, why would the people involved in their structuring seek out the views of the church board, lawyers and auditors? The 39-year-old said that her role in the transactions was that of a "facilitator" carrying out the board's instructions. 

Tan, who spoke about how she had joined the church when she was 15, cried as she related how she met her husband in church. They now have three sons, aged 4, 6 and 11, who are happy growing up in the church, she said.

She added that she was "not perfect" and that there were many things she did that may not seem to be the "best method administratively", but she never had any intention to cause any loss to the church. 

Tan said she was "watching out for the interests of the church", and this included buying a commercial property for its growing congregation, as well as the Crossover Project. The project centred on Ms Sun Ho, the wife of church founder Kong Hee, recording and launching pop music albums as a means of evangelism.