Sunday, October 12, 2014

CHC trial: Major milestones (TNP: 8th Oct 2014)

About the case

City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee and five others are on trial, on charges of misusing church funds through sham bonds.

First, $24 million was allegedly used to fund the music career of Kong's wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, whose stage name is Sun Ho. Then another $26.6 million was used to allegedly cover up the first amount.

They are said to have done this through music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, run by long-time supporters of the church.

Kong, former board member John Lam, finance manager Sharon Tan, former fund manager Chew Eng Han, deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng and former finance manager Serina Wee face charges of criminal breach of trust and/or falsifying accounts.

Prosecutors have sought to show how Xtron and Firna directors simply did the accused's bidding.

The defence has argued that the transactions were legitimate, with the accused acting "in good faith" on the advice of lawyers and auditors. The trial will resume on Jan 26 next year.

It is already turning into one of the longest-running trials here. After 88 days, only three of the six accused in the City Harvest Church leaders' trial have wrapped up their defence.

SHARON TAN, 39

Background: Joined the accounts department of CHC in 2000 and worked her way up, eventually succeeding co-accused Serina Wee as finance manager in 2008. Had first attended service at CHC when she was 18.

Charged with: Three counts of CBT and four of falsifying accounts

Days on stand: 14

Key defence points:
Accused of omitting important details at meetings, she responded by saying this was how she had been taught to takes minutes by Wee.

She was assured five times there was no need to show the investment from the church in its fund manager, AMAC Capital Partners, to auditors because, by the time the audit started, the investment in AMAC would have been redeemed.

She was under the impression that the previous audit partners had blessed the CHC-Xtron bonds.

Prosecution's case:
Her role was not merely administrative, nor was she merely a listener who took instructions. She was an active and willing participant to round-trip church funds.

As the church's finance manager, she had a duty to ensure the church's accounts reflected the true nature of the round-tripping transactions, but instead, she instructed her staff to falsely record these transactions as investments.

Case highlight:
Tan cried three times in court.

The third time was when she was pressed by Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh on whether the allegedly falsified board meeting minutes would have deceived the auditors.

Tan struggled to answer, even prompting the judge to intervene.

She eventually replied: "Your Honour, it might be seen like they are being deceived. But, Your Honour, it wasn't my intention."

She then broke down and proceedings were adjourned for 40 minutes.

 
JOHN LAM, 46
Background: He's a former City Harvest Church (CHC) board member, who served as treasurer and secretary. Also sat on the church's audit and investment committees. A certified public accountant and chartered financial analyst.

Charged with: Three counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT)

Days on stand: 10

Key defence points:

Lam was there only on an ad hoc basis.

He did not run the Crossover Project and he was not part of music production firm Xtron.

Whenever there was an accounting issue, he became involved because he is an accountant.

For the Xtron bond, he believed from information he had that repayment would be made through Sun Ho's album sales.

Prosecution's case:


He knew the Building Fund could not be used to fund the Crossover Project directly, and that was why it had to be disguised as a legitimate investment.

He is now trying to disassociate himself from the transactions and instead has been pushing the blame to some of the co-accused. For example, he blamed Sharon Tan for wrongly recording minutes and said Chew Eng Han told him about the transactions.

His defence has not only been untenable, it is deeply cynical based on his status within the church, his financial expertise and the documentary evidence and e-mails presented so far.

Case highlight:


Lam had said it was former CHC investment manager and co-accused Chew's idea to set up Xtron Productions.

But Chew shot back at Lam during the cross-examination: "I didn't approach you. I didn't have this grand vision of a media events company. I'll put it to you that the evidence you have given to the court that it was my idea is false."

Lam later admitted: "Based on this e-mail (which was presented as evidence by Chew), it will suggest that it was not you who thought of the idea to set up Xtron."


KONG HEE, 50


Background: Founder and senior pastor of CHC. He was the CHC board president from 1992 until 2011, when he stepped down.

Graduated from the National University of Singapore in 1988 where he majored in computer science and information systems.

Charged with: Three counts of CBT

Days on stand: 19

Key defence points:

He only handled the budgeting and liaising for the Crossover Project. He is not strong in financial knowledge.

He left the financial structuring to lawyers and auditors, and the management board, because they were more well-versed than he was to make decisions.

Post-2006, when he relocated overseas, he was more hands off.

Prosecution's case:
From the inception of the Crossover Project, he was both the person in charge and the ultimate decision-maker.

He engaged in a series of lies and deception over the years to conceal and facilitate the unauthorised misuse of the church's building fund by him and his co-accused.

He knew that channelling the building fund out of the church through these sham transactions was in breach of the permitted uses of the fund, which had been entrusted to him as a board member, specifically as president of the CHC board.

Case highlight:

When Chew, who was representing himself, cross-examined his former spiritual mentor, he told Kong: "I spoke to you... that you've got to stop shouting so loud, acting on the stage.

"You have still continued to do the opposite and to portray yourself as heroic, a responsible pastor, when, actually, you're not." Kong replied: "I don't try to portray myself as heroic, neither do I shout loud on the stage or act on the stage."

Key witness

HO YEOW SUN, 43
The wife of Kong Hee and co-founder of City Harvest Church (CHC), who goes by the stage name Sun Ho.

She was a member of the CHC board from 1993 to 2006.

She is also the central figure in this trial as $24 million of church funds was allegedly misused to fund her singing career.

Ms Ho has been based largely in the US since 2003 to pursue her music career.

She has released several singles in the US, including chart-topping dance numbers such as One With You, Without Love and Fancy Free.

Former fund manager Chew Eng Han has called her as one of his defence witnesses and she is expected to take the stand after the hearing resumes next year.

Others taking stand next year
CHEW ENG HAN, 54
Background: Became a City Harvest Church (CHC) member in 1995 and was on its board from 1999 to 2007, when he took on the role of the church's fund manager.

He reportedly left the church in June 2013, after 17 years, citing "a collision of primarily spiritual and moral principles".

Charged with: Six counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT) and four of falsifying accounts.

 
TAN YE PENG, 41
Background: A deputy senior pastor of CHC, who was first appointed to the board in 1995, and was elected as vice-president in 2007.

Also sat on the investment committee.

Charged with: Six counts of CBT and four of falsifying accounts.

 
SERINA WEE, 37
Background: Joined the accounts department of CHC in 1999 and was promoted to finance manager in 2005.

She was also a member of the CHC board from 2005 to 2007, when she left to set up her own accounting firm.

She is the administrator of the Crossover Project.

Charged with: Six counts of CBT and four of falsifying accounts.
About the case
City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee and five others are on trial, on charges of misusing church funds through sham bonds.
First, $24 million was allegedly used to fund the music career of Kong's wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, whose stage name is Sun Ho. Then another $26.6 million was used to allegedly cover up the first amount.
They are said to have done this through music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, run by long-time supporters of the church.
Kong, former board member John Lam, finance manager Sharon Tan, former fund manager Chew Eng Han, deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng and former finance manager Serina Wee face charges of criminal breach of trust and/or falsifying accounts.
Prosecutors have sought to show how Xtron and Firna directors simply did the accused's bidding.
The defence has argued that the transactions were legitimate, with the accused acting "in good faith" on the advice of lawyers and auditors. The trial will resume on Jan 26 next year.
It is already turning into one of the longest-running trials here. After 88 days, only three of the six accused in the City Harvest Church leaders' trial have wrapped up their defence.
SHARON TAN, 39
Background: Joined the accounts department of CHC in 2000 and worked her way up, eventually succeeding co-accused Serina Wee as finance manager in 2008. Had first attended service at CHC when she was 18.
Charged with: Three counts of CBT and four of falsifying accounts
Days on stand: 14
Key defence points:
Accused of omitting important details at meetings, she responded by saying this was how she had been taught to takes minutes by Wee.
She was assured five times there was no need to show the investment from the church in its fund manager, AMAC Capital Partners, to auditors because, by the time the audit started, the investment in AMAC would have been redeemed.
She was under the impression that the previous audit partners had blessed the CHC-Xtron bonds.
Prosecution's case:
Her role was not merely administrative, nor was she merely a listener who took instructions. She was an active and willing participant to round-trip church funds.
As the church's finance manager, she had a duty to ensure the church's accounts reflected the true nature of the round-tripping transactions, but instead, she instructed her staff to falsely record these transactions as investments.
Case highlight:
Tan cried three times in court.
The third time was when she was pressed by Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh on whether the allegedly falsified board meeting minutes would have deceived the auditors.
Tan struggled to answer, even prompting the judge to intervene.
She eventually replied: "Your Honour, it might be seen like they are being deceived. But, Your Honour, it wasn't my intention."
She then broke down and proceedings were adjourned for 40 minutes.
- See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/chc-trial-major-milestones#sthash.Ts9YaFn3.dpuf

30 September 2014 – Sharon’s Re-examination (Part 1) - (MrsLightnFriends: 13th Oct 2014)

Prosecutor’s Position

Prosecutor’s case is that CHC monies were used to generate the false impression that Firna had redeemed the bonds.

CHC’s monies purportedly invested in T10 and T11 ($5.8M and $5.6m total $11.4m) of the SOF via AMAC was actually round-tripped to redeem the Firna bonds.

ARLA (Advance Rental Licence Agreement) was a sham device for Xtron to use the monies to purchase $11.4m of Xtron-Firna bonds, which monies would in turn be channeled through Firna, UA and AMAC back to CHC to complete the round-tripping.

Sharon’s evidence in court

It was Sharon’s understanding that Xtron bonds had to be removed by the next financial year and for the Firna bond. The auditor would want to look into the details and nature of the Firna bonds and there will be a valuation that would needs to be done.

Sharon testified that Eng Han told her of the new redemption plan and her involvement was to pass the massage to John Lam and Serina. She was concerned about the Related Party Transaction (RPT) disclosure obligation that might arise if Xtron buys back the rights. This is because Sun is the wife of Pastor Kong, and it will be disclosed under CHC’s book. She understands that the Crossover Project is something that the church wanted to be very discreet about, to keep it as secular as possible.

The board was aware of the Xtron and Firna bonds and the board was aware of Mr Sim’s issue and therefore Mr Chew Eng Han was proposing a solution to deal with the issues raised by Mr Sim. The proposed solution was presented to the board on 18 July 2009.

There is the handwritten notes took by Sharon at the board meeting on 18 July 2009.  According to Sharon’s evidence, Mr Chew Eng Han presented the redemption plan to the board. Sharon copied down the diagram in her handwritten notes.

Present in the board meeting on 18 July 2009
Kong Hee – President
Tan Ye Peng – Vice President
Nicholas – Treasurer
Suraj – Secretary
Aries – Board Member
Chiang Pak Shane – Board Member
Choong Tsih Ming – Board Member
John Lam – Board Member
Lee Tat Haur – Board Member
Martin Ong – Board Member
Invited to attend
Chew Eng Han – Fund Manager
Sharon Tan – Finance Manager

Redemption plan diagram on 18 July 2009
(Note: This is not the original diagram in Sharon’s hand written notes.)
round-tripping
Looking at the diagram, it showed the series of planned transactions between Pacific Radiance, AMAC, Firna, Xtron and CHC.

The proposal was for the Firna bonds, Pacific Radiance (John Lam was the CFO at that time) to invest $17m into AMAC and AMAC could in turn loan the $17m to Firna. With the money from AMAC, Firna would redeem the CHC Firna bonds. The Xtron bonds would still be redeemed using the advance rental from CHC.

There are other handwritten notes on 12 September 2009. Sharon copied down the redemption diagram in her handwritten notes.

Redemption plan diagram on 12 September 2009
(Note: This is not the original diagram in Sharon’s hand written notes.)
Round-tripping
The following is what Sharon wrote to John Lam and Serina Wee in her email dated 1 May 2009:
Dear John Lam and Serina,
Eng Han told me of a new plan (which is back to the very original plan) which he wants to know your views:
1. CHC pays upfront rental to Xtron. Xtron will use upfront rental to buy shares in JV Co. which will buy Palm Oil. No need to transfer Building Fund.
2. Loan in JV Co. will be serviced by EBIDTA from the other operations of the building.
3. Xtron is also a lessee of the JV Co. Xtron will sub lease to CHC.
4. As there wil be a lot of upfront rental, Xtron can redeem the bonds partially. The other part of the bonds will be redeemed, hopefully, by selling RW.
5. There is also a further plan for JV Co. to get a listing via reverse takeover (RTO). Then hopefully, XPL can sell Riverwalk to the JV Co.
6. Xtron will then use the proceeds to redeem the bonds.
7. Preference is to sell Riverwalk to the listed Co. and clear the bonds for Riverwalk.
8. May use upfront rental to clear Firna bonds too
9. Xtron to buy back rights to Sun from Ultimate Asset.
10. Ultimate Asset pays back Firna and Firna pays back CHC.
DPP’s put statement on 26 September 2014
DPP: “I put it to you, Ms Tan, that when we look at the differences between the official minutes of meeting and what you claim to be your contemporaneous handwritten notes of that meeting. It is clear that your claims, that the handwritten notes in CH-49b (18 July 09 diagram) and CH-50b (12 September 09 diagram) reflect accurately the discussions at the board those meetings, cannot be true.
DPP: “I put it to you that even if it true that the board was told of the ARLA after 18 July 2009, the board was not told of the entire series of round-tripping transactions which we see set out in detail in the hand-drawn diagrams in CH-49b (18 July 09 diagram) and CH-50b (12 September 09 diagram).

Sharon explained that she took the notes during the board meeting because she wanted to remember what was had been discussed in the board. After she took the note, she put it in her personal file first and prepared the minutes later.

Ramesh: “You prepared the minutes later. What did you do with the minutes that were prepared in relation to this board meeting?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, after I prepared these minutes, I submit to Suraj for approval.”

Ramesh: “What title did Mr Suraj hold?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, Suraj is the board member as well as a board secretary of City Harvest.”
The handwritten notes shown evidence that the agenda stated has been discussed during the board meeting.

One of the items discussed in the board meeting of 18 July was about Palm Oil. It was in her hand written notes.

Ramesh opened an email evidence to strengthen Sharon’s position.

Sharon Tan wrote to Tan Ye Peng and copied to Chew Eng Han on 19 July 2009.

She wrote:
Dear Pastor Tan,This is a consolidated cash flow for our funds.
Eng Han mentioned in the Board meeting that the amount to put into Palm Oil is $40m and Sport Hub is $10m…
Ramesh: “I have looked through the minutes and I have not seen anything about $40m and Sport Hub being mentioned…?”

Sharon: “Yes, your Honour, it’s not minuted.”

Ramesh: “Why?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, because these are confidential information that I received instruction from the board not to minute down.”

Ramesh: “Why?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, because this has to do with building project, which during the search itself, it is a very sensitive period of time for negotiation and the board doesn’t want the negotiation itself to fail.”

——

The DPP used the new evidence presented on 22 September 2014, which is the blackberry memo extracted from Sharon Tan’s blackberry phone to build the case.

There are 72 images extracted from the blackberry memo and some messages are being redacted. According to the DPP, the content was redacted simply because it was not relevant to the case.

On 30 September 2014, Mr Ramesh introduced the full version of the blackberry memo to cross-examine Sharon. He brought Sharon through images 29 to 35 and put the entire conversations in its proper context.

At that point in time, on 18 July 2009, when the redemption plan was brought up to the board for approval Sharon was concerned about the audit issue.

Image 28
Sharon was talking about solving Firna by October and that being an audit point if not solved. Xtron was not mentioned.
Image 29
Eng Han said to Sharon: “I have a solution for the Xtron and Firna bonds regardless of whether we get the building by October 2009.”
Ramesh: “Eng Han is talking to you. Who was formulating this plan, Ms Tan, this solution?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, it was Eng Han.”

Image 30
Eng Han: “It has to do with prepayment Xtron will contract with CHC to provide a minimum 5k seater every weekend for say the next 25years. Assuming a yearly rental of $4m, total is 100 million. We then discount it back at a 5 percent yield, and the discounted present value is the lump sum payment that CHC makes to Xtron.
Image 31
Xtron is free to use the money to invest in a building or whatever investment to earn a yield so that it can fulfill its commitment to CHC to secure a place.
From this lump sum, Xtron redeems the $21m bonds, it also buys over the rights from Ultimate Assets (UA) to the rights to the crossover for $17m.
Mr Chew Eng Han then goes on to say: “After spending the $38m, the leftover is invested in the building which should earn a yield of 10 percent at least and that will help Xtron’s cashflow to meets its future commitment as it pays rental for CHC.”
Image 32
Eng Han said: “We will pass a board resolution to state the reason why we do this. Because the board recognizes that it is hampered from owning a building and is trying to replicate the scenario by this contract with Xtron.”
Eng Han said: “To make it more attractive, we can insert another condition that Xtron will refund a percentage of any potential total gains it makes from this contract.”
This is after 18 July 2009, when the Suntec bid had failed despite the fact that the Church had bid a larger sum of money.

Ramesh: “Mr Chew is telling you all of this. He describes the plan, he describes what it is intended to achieve, and then he says, “Let’s put it before the board to pass it and minute it.” What did you think was going on in terms of the legality, legitimacy of this transaction this plan?”  He comes up with a plan, and he says, “Put it before the board, pass a resolution, minute it”, what did you think Mr Chew was doing?

Sharon: “Your Honour, Mr Chew was suggesting a plan and to me that is above board and legal because he’s suggesting to pass the resolution to bring it up to the board for approval before going ahead with all the legal documentation.”

Ramesh: “Eng Han goes on in image 32 to make it more attractive, we can insert another condition…. Mr Chew is looking out for whose interest in this transaction?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, Eng Han was looking out for the interest of the church.”

Image 33
Eng Han: “So we try to replicate a deal that makes it as close to the scenario as if CHC owned the building.”
Eng Han: “The reason for doing this is real that CHC can’t get a building as we experienced it many times with the government bias.”
Image 34
Eng Han: “The deal is on regardless of whether Xtron gets a building now. It has its own time to get a good land and building to invest in and meanwhile before it finds one it just has to make sure it finds a place to rent.”
Eng Han: “We document down all the difficulties we face in getting a land in the board minutes and pass the reso.”
On 25 September 2014, the DPP suggested to Sharon that the image 29 and 30 are evidence of the fact that the four of the accused (Sharon Tan, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina Wee) were planning or using ARLA as an excuse to redeem bonds, that it was not about buying property, not about securing a site for the church.

DPP’s put statement on 25 September 2014
DPP: “We see at image 29 that Eng Han and you are talking about the redemption of the Xtron and Firna bonds. Eng Han tells you that he has a solution. He goes on, at image 30, to tell you that this solution is basically to do with rental prepayment, Yes?”
 Sharon: “Yes, your Honour.”
DPP: “If you look back at image 29, we see that Eng Han tells you that this solution for the Xtron and Firna bonds is regardless of whether we get the building by then. So this exchange between Eng Han and you is further evidence of the fact that when the ALRA was eventually planned by the four of you, bidding for a building was not a concern; the concern was to redeem the Xtron and Firna. Correct?”
Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree, firstly, because the plan of ARLA was not conceived by me. Secondly, Eng Han explained to me that the need for ALRA is real and there is a need for the church to mandate Xtron to secure a building for the church.”

Ramesh: “So tell us, Ms Tan was the ARLA about buying property or about redemption of bonds or what? You tell us.”

Sharon: “Your Honour, it has been presented to the board as well as to myself that the ARLA is needed to be given to Xtron for the property, because there is a real need, which was stated by Eng Han in this BB messages that the time is running out and there are not a lot of options for the church. So Xtron is given a responsibility to secure a place for the church, and ALRA, itself, is needed and important to hold Xtron responsible to secure a place for the church, your Honour.”

Ramesh: ‘So the suggestion by the prosecution that it’s a sham, or it’s an accuse, a short response, Ms Tan, to that suggestion?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree with the prosecution’s case that the ARLA is a sham.”

On 22 September 2014, the DPP suggested to Sharon: “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. It’s clear that you know, because you go on to express further worry that, “But Mr Sim will know, the same money given to Xtron is being used to buy Firna contract.” Do you agree that that is what is going on here between you and Mr Chew?”

Ramesh brought Sharon to see image 36 and image 38
Image 36
Eng Han said: “We have a sound reason to do this, just document it all down in our minutes. We get lawyers to draft a agreement between CHC and Xtron.”
Ramesh: “I would like you to respond to the prosecution’s suggestion that the documentation of the transaction by the lawyers is nothing but a cover story.”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree because it was already explained by Eng Han and it was also the board’s agreement and view that there is a very sound reason, a very valid reason, and a need for the church to give advance rental to Xtron, to give Xtron the mandate to secure a building for the church.”

Image 38
Sharon: “OIC… so u told Pastor Tan all the above already?”
Eng Han said: “Yes I told him and Pastor Kong…”
Ramesh: “Why was it important to you that Eng Han had briefed Pastor Tan?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, it’s important to me because Pastor Tan is the second in line after Pastor Kong, and he has been in all board meeting leading the discussion, so I wanted to make sure that Pastor Tan is aware about it.”

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

CHC trial: 'Related party transactions' were main concern, says church finance manager (CNA: 30th Sept 2014)

SINGAPORE: Taking the stand for the 13th day, City Harvest Church finance manager Sharon Tan on Tuesday (Sep 30) reiterated that her main concern was about "related party transactions" in the church's investments. The 39-year-old said so in response to questions from her lawyer, Senior Counsel Kannan Ramesh, during re-examination.

Tan 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 church founder Kong Hee. They are accused of doing so through sham bond investments in two companies, production house Xtron and glassware manufacturer Firna, and then covering them up.

On Tuesday, the court was shown an email dated May 2009, where fund manager Chew Eng Han, who is also one of the accused, had proposed a plan for the redemption of Xtron bonds.
This involved the church paying Xtron a large amount as advance rental for it to secure premises for church services and activities. The advance rental could then contribute towards redemption of the bonds.

Under the plan, part of the advance rental would also be used to buy the artiste management rights for Sun Ho from Ultimate Assets, a company owned by Indonesian businessman and church member, Wahju Hanafi.

Ho's recording and launching of secular music albums was part of the church's Crossover Project, which aimed to evangelise and influence those who would never choose to step into a church.

Tan had understood that any links between the project and the church would have to be discreet for the project to be "as secular as possible" so that it would not be jeopardised. As such, she had concerns that the advance rental from the church that was used to buy the rights from Ultimate Assets, would be seen by auditors.

Tan said that this may give rise to the issue of related party transactions, which would lead to disclosure of the links between the church and companies such as Ultimate Assets.

City Harvest Trial: Manager plays down her 'round-trip' role (ST: 1st Oct 2014)

Sharon Tan points out repeatedly that proposal was ex-fund manager's

City Harvest Church (CHC) finance manager Sharon Tan repeatedly downplayed her role in alleged plans to "round-trip" church funds and throw auditors off.

For instance, it was co-accused Chew Eng Han who had made various suggestions and come up with the eventual proposal on how to purge the bonds held by the church in two firms, Tan told the court at least six times yesterday.

While being question by her lawyer, Senior Counsel Kannan Ramesh, the 39-year-old also repeated earlier claims that she had been consistently "concerned" and focused on the "audit issue" the church was facing.

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 and Chew, the church's former fund manager, then allegedly devised transactions the clear the sham bonds from CHC's accounts to mislead auditors.

Tan also made various claims about her state of mind at the time, including how she had felt assured that the plans were in the church's interest, in part because co-accused and deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng was in the loop.

Chew had also assured her that he had made both Tan Ye Peng and Kong aware of the plans, she said, adding: "That's why I was comforted and assured that we can go ahead with the plan."

Tan, who was taking the stand for the 13th day, also rejected the prosecution's allegation that "advance rental" of $15 million transferred from the church to Xtron had been a "cover story".

The aim, said the prosecution, was to help Xtron pay back its "debt" to the church held in the bonds, in turn allowing the sham bonds to be cleared from CHC's books.

Instead, the payment would help to fill a "real need" to help Xtron secure premises the church needed for its services, she said.

Tan also disagreed with the prosecution's earlier suggestion that she had wanted to hide from auditors what the church's money had been invested in, maintaining that she had been troubled by the "audit issue".

The trial resumes tomorrow with Mr Ramesh expected to finish re-examining her.

City Harvest Trial: Accused wrote of round-tripping in e-mail (ST: 30th Sept 2014)

Prosecution says this shows finance manager knew what was going on

City Harvest Church (CHC) finance manager Sharon Tan was aware of what "round-tripping" meant and had even used the term in an e-mail to her three co-accused discussing the church's finances, the court heard yesterday.

In the March 22, 2010 message referred to by the prosecution, Tan had written: "By right, if this (sic) funds is a round trip and can come back to CHC, we can cut down by one (round of fund raising)."

This was part of discussions among the four, the prosecution charged, on how to raise money for City Harvest's building fund and channel surplus generated in the process through various entities and back to the church.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh said Tan had shown "clearly" in the discussion that she knew what was happening.

But Tan, 39, disagreed, later saying: "The main aim was to decrease the number of rounds of building fund campaign, and to raise as little as we can."

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, inclduing Tan, then allegedly devised transactions to clear the sham bonds from CHC's accounts to throw auditors off the scent.

Yesterday, the March 22 e-mail was among several the prosecution cited to show how the four were trying to raise building fund money, and channel the surplus to pump into Xtron, to clear its liabilities.

In one message, Tan had written to her predecessor and co-accused Serina Wee: "Will we still be doing this 10 years later? Hahahahaha..."

Ms Chionh yesterday said this showed, among other things, that Tan was aware that the "solutions" the four were planning were simply "buying time" for Xtron, so as to "kick the problem down the road", and, in turn, give themselves breathing space to find more ways to channel yet more church funds into the firm.

Tan disagreed, calling it a matter of "scenario planning".

The prosecution finished cross-examining Tan yesterday.

The trial continues today, with her lawyer, Senior Counsel Kannan Ramesh, expected to continue cross-examining her.