City Harvest Church trial: What the judge said (Today: 23 Oct 2015)

SINGAPORE — Presiding Judge of the State Courts See Kee Oon released his full written judgment grounds for the City Harvest Church trial today (Oct 22), in which he criticised the culture of insecurity that the six convicted former leaders of the mega-church operated under.
CHC founder Kong Hee, his deputy Tan Ye Peng, former church accountant Serina Wee, former church investment manager Chew Eng Han, former finance manager Sharon Tan and former church board member John Lam were found guilty on all of counts of criminal breach of trust and/or falsification of accounts. Here is an excerpt of what the judge said about each of the offenders’ roles and conduct.

Kong Hee, church founder and senior pastor
 


“In my assessment, Kong Hee’s evidence reveals his tendency to lapse readily into embellishment or exaggeration ... He does not appear to dispute that he demonstrates a penchant for hyperbole ... Kong Hee maintains that he is a pastor and not an expert in legality. But one does not need to be an expert in legality to appreciate certain fundamental aspects of honesty, truth and integrity. He maintains that he did not control Xtron, but the weight of the evidence contradicts this claim flatly. He had also previously maintained emphatically that no church funds were ever used (in his own words, ‘not a single cent’) to support Sun Ho’s music career and boost her sales prior to the Roland Poon incident, but this is again flatly contradicted by the evidence that emerged at the trial.”

Tan Ye Peng, deputy senior pastor



“A familiar pattern of Ye Peng’s that emerged during cross-examination was to concede that he ‘did not know how to answer’ the question or that he ‘wasn’t thinking so much about this’ ... They reflected the reality that he was not aware of the full range of details, but also showed the extent of his deference to Kong Hee and Eng Han and his unquestioning trust of his fellow CHC members within the inner circle ... He may have believed he was acting in CHC’s best interests as Kong Hee professed to have done, but I find that he had acted consciously and dishonestly in applying the Building Fund for a wrong use.”

John Lam Leng Hung, former church board member



“I accept that John Lam’s participation and involvement was much less extensive compared with that of the other accused. However, a lesser degree of participation does not immediately absolve him of culpability ... I am persuaded by the evidence and the prosecution’s submission that John Lam performed a special role that none of the conspirators could have fulfilled. He was the “inside man” from within CHC’s trusted inner circle, occupying key positions of financial responsibility as treasurer, finance committee member, investment committee chairman and audit committee member. Working from those positions, I agree that John Lam actively participated in the scheme to ensure that funding for Sun Ho’s music career would be obtained through the Xtron and Firna bonds.”

Chew Eng Han, former church investment manager and board member



“In my view, Eng Han’s forceful personality coupled with his determination and drive to achieve his objectives was recognised and exploited by Kong Hee. In this regard, they were kindred spirits and they tapped and fuelled each other’s drive, one as a spiritual leader and the other as a finance expert. The difficulty came when moral and ethical lines became ambiguous and subjective, in the name of having to be discreet to avoid disclosure of CHC’s funding for the Crossover. In Eng Han’s words: “I think most of us didn’t know where that line exactly was.” Notwithstanding that, Eng Han chose to cross the line with Kong Hee and Ye Peng leading the way.”

Serina Wee, former church accountant



“Serina cannot claim to be ignorant or unaware of the Crossover’s financing needs that culminated in the bond transactions. She was a key member of the ‘Crossover team’, being the one tasked with monitoring Xtron’s finances and alerting Kong Hee and Ye Peng about upcoming requirements, cashflow deficits, shortfalls or “valley points”. She was heavily and inextricably embroiled in the cashflow planning and projection process and was no unwitting accomplice. Her attempts to portray her motives as laudable do not detract from her guilty knowledge. I do not doubt her commitment to CHC’s vision for the Crossover and her love for CHC, but this did not ipso facto mean that she was thus incapable of criminal conduct.”

Sharon Tan Shao Yuen, former church finance manager



“Sharon says that she believed that Kong Hee “loves the church a lot and will never do anything to harm the church” ... Her defence is that she was an ignorant and unwitting accomplice, drawn into the tangled web ... Like the other accused persons who professed their love for CHC and support for the Crossover vision, I do not doubt Sharon’s evidence in this regard. I am of the view, however, that Sharon’s knowledge and involvement went far beyond that of a mere employee who was dutifully carrying out instructions. She supported Kong Hee’s vision and had chosen to help facilitate the round-tripping transactions, and it can hardly be said that she honestly believed that they were legally entitled to do so.”

Saga highlights crucial role of whistle-blower (ST: 22 Oct 2015)

If there was one clear message yesterday from the guilty verdicts for all six accused in the City Harvest Church trial, it is that the courts here will not tolerate any hanky-panky when it comes to charity money.

There is no excuse, even if they were acting on faith in a magnetic spiritual leader - in this case Kong Hee, who went from a computer science graduate to the founder of a wealthy mega-church with more than 30,000 members at its peak.

But what should also not be forgotten is that it was a decision by a whistle-blower which got the ball rolling. In 2003, church member Roland Poon went public about the growing disquiet over how the church was spending donated money on pushing the pop music career of Kong's wife Ho Yeow Sun.

The 2005 National Kidney Foundation (NKF) scandal also had its roots in a whistle-blower - a contractor in his 50s, who donated to the cause and wanted to be known only as Mr Tan. He revealed how he had installed a gold-plated tap at the charity's headquarters, opening a can of worms that led to an overhaul of the way charities are regulated.

An independent KPMG audit of NKF revealed systemic weaknesses, such as how the Commissioner of Charities could step in only after a complaint was made. NKF was also able to overstate subsidy figures, treatment costs and patient numbers, despite repeated audits.

In the wake of the report, the Commissioner of Charities (COC) became a full-time position. The oversight system was given tools to be more proactive, with the power to call for documents, search records of charities and appoint auditors to investigate. And in 2007, the Charity Council was formed to push charities into adopting good governance and best practices.

Even so, there was a recognition the authorities could do only so much. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong highlighted the role of the whistle-blower, explaining that there was no way the Government could keep watch on everything.

He said: "If you feel some group has gone wrong and you have the information about it, then come forward and give the information."

This was reiterated to The Straits Times by social service veteran Gerard Ee, current chairman of the Charity Council, who took over the reins at NKF to set things right.

"The role of a whistle-blower is very important," he said yesterday. "If you're a member of the organisation and you know something is amiss but you keep quiet, then you're equally guilty. If you sense that something is wrong, then you should question it. If the financial information is not available, then you should ask why it isn't available."

Still, it will be good if such information was readily accessible.

A plan to ensure that all charities' financial statements are posted on the COC's online Charity Portal for free viewing is yet to come to full fruition. Deadlines have been set and missed over the years. Until now, the past two years of accounts of CHC, a registered charity since 1993, are not available on the site.

"A majority of charities are not large... They don't raise a lot of funds and it may be a challenge for them to have the resources to collate financial statements on a timely basis," said Mr Ee. "The last thing we want to do is to close down charities, especially if they're doing something for a good cause. We just have to keep encouraging them to post their financial information online."

But larger religious charities like CHC are a breed apart. They work behind closed doors, and donations are at times made with a blind conviction that those in charge will always do the right thing under the scrutiny of heaven.

Kong preaches the controversial prosperity gospel, which boils down to "give, and you will receive". The more the tithe, the more the followers will get back materially on earth. As CHC's online donation page puts it: "We believe that our giving is a form of worship."

Former CHC members have spoken of the pressure they felt to donate. Some say they left when the returns never came even as church leaders seemed to be living the high life. And it is not easy to raise the issue publicly, given the possible backlash from fellow worshippers, or a higher power.

In 2003, Mr Poon came forward just before the MTV Asia Awards, where Ms Ho was vying for the Singapore Favourite Artist Award. At the time, there were allegations that church members were being used to drum up votes for her.

Kong insisted not a single cent in church funds was used to buy or promote her albums. In a week, Mr Poon, a 53-year-old businessman at the time, retracted his allegations and spent over $30,000 on apologies in newspapers. But as Mr Poon's daughter told The Straits Times yesterday: "We now know that what he did was right."

•Additional reporting by Priscilla Goy

What should also not be forgotten is that it was a decision by a whistle-blower which got the ball rolling. In 2003, church member Roland Poon went public about the growing disquiet over how the church was spending donated money on pushing the pop music career of Kong's wife Ho Yeow Sun.

If there was one clear message yesterday from the guilty verdicts for all six accused in the City Harvest Church trial, it is that the courts here will not tolerate any hanky-panky when it comes to charity money.
There is no excuse, even if they were acting on faith in a magnetic spiritual leader - in this case Kong Hee, who went from a computer science graduate to the founder of a wealthy mega-church with more than 30,000 members at its peak.
But what should also not be forgotten is that it was a decision by a whistle-blower which got the ball rolling. In 2003, church member Roland Poon went public about the growing disquiet over how the church was spending donated money on pushing the pop music career of Kong's wife Ho Yeow Sun.
The 2005 National Kidney Foundation (NKF) scandal also had its roots in a whistle-blower - a contractor in his 50s, who donated to the cause and wanted to be known only as Mr Tan. He revealed how he had installed a gold-plated tap at the charity's headquarters, opening a can of worms that led to an overhaul of the way charities are regulated.
An independent KPMG audit of NKF revealed systemic weaknesses, such as how the Commissioner of Charities could step in only after a complaint was made. NKF was also able to overstate subsidy figures, treatment costs and patient numbers, despite repeated audits.
In the wake of the report, the Commissioner of Charities (COC) became a full-time position. The oversight system was given tools to be more proactive, with the power to call for documents, search records of charities and appoint auditors to investigate. And in 2007, the Charity Council was formed to push charities into adopting good governance and best practices.
Even so, there was a recognition the authorities could do only so much. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong highlighted the role of the whistle-blower, explaining that there was no way the Government could keep watch on everything.
He said: "If you feel some group has gone wrong and you have the information about it, then come forward and give the information."
This was reiterated to The Straits Times by social service veteran Gerard Ee, current chairman of the Charity Council, who took over the reins at NKF to set things right.
"The role of a whistle-blower is very important," he said yesterday. "If you're a member of the organisation and you know something is amiss but you keep quiet, then you're equally guilty. If you sense that something is wrong, then you should question it. If the financial information is not available, then you should ask why it isn't available."
Still, it will be good if such information was readily accessible.
A plan to ensure that all charities' financial statements are posted on the COC's online Charity Portal for free viewing is yet to come to full fruition. Deadlines have been set and missed over the years. Until now, the past two years of accounts of CHC, a registered charity since 1993, are not available on the site.
"A majority of charities are not large... They don't raise a lot of funds and it may be a challenge for them to have the resources to collate financial statements on a timely basis," said Mr Ee. "The last thing we want to do is to close down charities, especially if they're doing something for a good cause. We just have to keep encouraging them to post their financial information online."
But larger religious charities like CHC are a breed apart. They work behind closed doors, and donations are at times made with a blind conviction that those in charge will always do the right thing under the scrutiny of heaven.
Kong preaches the controversial prosperity gospel, which boils down to "give, and you will receive". The more the tithe, the more the followers will get back materially on earth. As CHC's online donation page puts it: "We believe that our giving is a form of worship."
Former CHC members have spoken of the pressure they felt to donate. Some say they left when the returns never came even as church leaders seemed to be living the high life. And it is not easy to raise the issue publicly, given the possible backlash from fellow worshippers, or a higher power.
In 2003, Mr Poon came forward just before the MTV Asia Awards, where Ms Ho was vying for the Singapore Favourite Artist Award. At the time, there were allegations that church members were being used to drum up votes for her.
Kong insisted not a single cent in church funds was used to buy or promote her albums. In a week, Mr Poon, a 53-year-old businessman at the time, retracted his allegations and spent over $30,000 on apologies in newspapers. But as Mr Poon's daughter told The Straits Times yesterday: "We now know that what he did was right."
•Additional reporting by Priscilla Goy

---

What should also not be forgotten is that it was a decision by a whistle-blower which got the ball rolling. In 2003, church member Roland Poon went public about the growing disquiet over how the church was spending donated money on pushing the pop music career of Kong's wife Ho Yeow Sun.
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/71692-saga-highlights-crucial-role-of-whistle-blower#sthash.sUNwAceJ.dpuf

Removal proceedings to resume against CHC leaders after sentencing: Commissioner of Charities (Today: 23 Oct 2015)

SINGAPORE — Proceedings to remove the City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders and members convicted of criminal charges will resume after they are sentenced by the court, said the Office of the Commissioner of Charities (COC).

In a response to queries that was sent close to midnight yesterday (Oct 21), the COC said: “The COC will seek representations from the City Harvest Church and the seven suspended individuals … as to why the COC should not remove them. The COC will consider fully and fairly all representations received before making a decision”

In August 2013, the COC had agreed to defer proceedings to remove eight former CHC executive members until this court case concludes. These eight individuals include all six offenders convicted yesterday — founder and senior pastor Kong Hee, his deputy Tan Ye Peng, John Lam, Sharon Tan, Chew Eng Han and Serina Wee. The remaining two are Mr Kelvin Teo Meng How and Ms Jacqueline Tan Su Pheng. Former church investment manager Chew Eng Han, who was also convicted yesterday, left CHC shortly after the trial started in 2013.

The consent of the Attorney-General is required before a removal order can be made by the COC.

Church founder Kong Hee, his deputy Tan Ye Peng, former church investment manager Chew Eng Han, former church accountant Serina Wee Gek Yin, former church finance manager Sharon Tan Shao Yuen and former church board member John Lam Leng Hung were found guilty of misappropriating S$50.6 million of church funds yesterday.

They faced three to 10 charges each of criminal breach of trust and/or falsification of accounts.

SINGAPORE — Proceedings to remove the City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders and members convicted of criminal charges will resume after they are sentenced by the court, said the Office of the Commissioner of Charities (COC).
In a response to queries that was sent close to midnight yesterday (Oct 21), the COC said: “The COC will seek representations from the City Harvest Church and the seven suspended individuals … as to why the COC should not remove them. The COC will consider fully and fairly all representations received before making a decision”
In August 2013, the COC had agreed to defer proceedings to remove eight former CHC executive members until this court case concludes. These eight individuals include all six offenders convicted yesterday — founder and senior pastor Kong Hee, his deputy Tan Ye Peng, John Lam, Sharon Tan, Chew Eng Han and Serina Wee. The remaining two are Mr Kelvin Teo Meng How and Ms Jacqueline Tan Su Pheng. Former church investment manager Chew Eng Han, who was also convicted yesterday, left CHC shortly after the trial started in 2013.
The consent of the Attorney-General is required before a removal order can be made by the COC.
Church founder Kong Hee, his deputy Tan Ye Peng, former church investment manager Chew Eng Han, former church accountant Serina Wee Gek Yin, former church finance manager Sharon Tan Shao Yuen and former church board member John Lam Leng Hung were found guilty of misappropriating S$50.6 million of church funds yesterday.
They faced three to 10 charges each of criminal breach of trust and/or falsification of accounts.
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/71751-removal-proceedings-to-resume-against-chc-leaders-after-sentencing-commissioner-of-charities#sthash.eWFAQmav.dpuf

Six accused in City Harvest trial guilty of all charges (ST: 23 Oct 2015)

They had acted dishonestly and were involved in conspiracies to misuse church funds, says judge

The long-running legal battle over the misuse of City Harvest Church (CHC) funds yesterday resulted in all six accused being convicted of multimillion-dollar fraud.

Some of them, including the church's charismatic 51-year-old founder Kong Hee, were found guilty of secretly funnelling $24 million of church funds into sham investments to bankroll the controversial pop music career of his wife Ho Yeow Sun. And some were guilty of devising plans to use a further $26 million to cover these tracks.

In a courtroom packed with close to 70 church supporters, Judge See Kee Oon ruled that the six had "acted dishonestly" and were involved in conspiracies to misuse church building funds for the Crossover Project - a CHC mission to evangelise through Ms Ho's music. They also defrauded auditors by falsifying accounts.

"Each of them participated and functioned in their own way as crucial cogs in the machinery," said Judge See, who singled out Kong as the spiritual leader the other defendants had trusted.

They are: former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, 55; former CHC finance managers Serina Wee, 38, and Sharon Tan, 40; deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42; and former CHC finance committee member John Lam, 47.

The mammoth trial has captured public attention as tales of extravagant spending by Kong and his wife emerged along with details of an intricate financial fraud.

After 140 days of trial proceedings which began in May 2013, all six arrived in court to hear the verdict in good spirits with their families in tow. Minutes before the hearing began, they were chatting and joking with each other in the dock.

Chew told The Straits Times he was at peace and unafraid, while Tan Ye Peng flashed a thumbs up sign at the defence lawyers.

Some of the church's supporters had queued overnight for a coveted pass into the courtroom, and about 60 people who did not manage to get a ticket were outside, eyes glued to their phones for updates.

But moments after Judge See started delivering his verdict, the mood darkened. Smiles faded and the six stared glumly ahead.

The judge addressed them in sequence, pronouncing the six guilty of all charges - which involved varying counts of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.

Most of them hung their heads low in the dock. Sharon Tan and Wee were seen wiping away tears.

After the hearing, Senior Counsels Edwin Tong, Andre Maniam and N. Sreenivasan - lawyers for Kong, Wee and Tan Ye Peng, respectively - said it was still "too early" to say whether or not their clients would appeal.

Lawyers on both sides are due back in court on Nov 20 to deliver oral submissions on sentencing.

A maximum cumulative sentence of 20 years can be imposed on the accused, in addition to a fine.

In a statement released by the church, Kong's wife Ho, who is also CHC's executive director, said: "We have placed our faith in God and trust that whatever the outcome, He will use it for our good."

Some of those found guilty stuck to their guns. "It's been a very long trial, and someone prudent would have been prepared for conviction. But, of course, we were always believing in our acquittal," said Lam.

Chew said: "I still believe in justice, that the innocent will be set free. And I believe I am innocent."

Hiding unlawful conduct, siphoning funds, fraud...

They had engaged in covert operations and concealed their unlawful conduct. They had knowingly siphoned millions from the church to fund the expensive music career of the pastor's wife.

And they had defrauded auditors with falsified accounts and conspired with the intention to cause wrongful loss to City Harvest Church (CHC).

The list of misdeeds at the end of Judge See Kee Oon's 15-page oral judgment read like a damning coda to the City Harvest trial.

In the judgment, he wrote that the weight of the evidence had led him to find all six City Harvest co- accused guilty of all the charges made out against them.

The six - including senior pastor Kong Hee, 51 - had stood trial on varying charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.

For each count of criminal breach of trust, the six could face up to 10 years' jail and a fine. The falsification of accounts carries a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.

The maximum jail sentence that District Court judges can impose is 10 years per charge, or a cumulative sentence of up to 20 years.

The other accused are deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42; former CHC finance managers Serina Wee, 38, and Sharon Tan, 40; former CHC finance committee member John Lam, 47; and former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, 55.

Bail of $1 million was extended to Kong, Tan Ye Peng, Chew and Lam. It was set at $750,000 for Sharon Tan and Wee. Wee was previously out on bail for $500,000. All six are barred from travelling overseas.

Judge See noted that although there was no evidence of any wrongful gain by the accused, this did not factor in his decision as the prosecution's case was "premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation of CHC's funds".

Nor did it matter ultimately if the accused had "trusted completely the leadership of Kong Hee" and acted in accordance with his instructions.

"But no matter how pure the motive or how ingrained the trust in one's leaders... these do not exonerate an accused person from criminal liability if all the elements of an offence are made out," he wrote.

The six had misused some $50 million in church building funds earmarked for building-related expenses or investments.

First, $24 million was invested in bonds from music production company Xtron and glass-maker Firna that were in fact used to fund the Crossover Project - a mission to evangelise through Ms Ho Yeow Sun's music.

Later, $26 million was used to cover up the initial misdeed.

Judge See noted that Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments but were "wrong use" of the building fund.

Furthermore, he said, the accused went ahead with the $13 million Xtron bonds, even though album sales projections indicated that only about 200,000 copies would be sold, making far less money than that needed to redeem the bonds on time. The defendants then devised plans to funnel funds to Xtron "under the guise of legitimate transactions" to help it solve its cashflow difficulties.

They also hid the fact from auditors that the company was controlled by Kong and Tan Ye Peng.

"I do not accept that they genuinely believed that the sale of Sun Ho's music albums would generate sufficient profit for CHC to enjoy financial return," wrote Judge See, noting that Ms Ho's "perceived success" was inflated as album sales were boosted by the church.

Similarly, the "primary purpose" of the $11 million in Firna bonds was to channel money from the church to the Crossover Project.

Judge See said he did not buy the defence's argument that money spent on Crossover had a dual purpose of being an investment and serving a "missions" purpose.

"These are creative labels tacked on in an attempt to strain and stretch the plain meaning of the word 'investment'," he said.

He said the "round-tripping" transactions devised were merely to give the appearance the bonds were redeemed. "The substance of it was that CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself," he wrote.

Judge See noted the paper trail left by the accused did not indicate innocence, as the defence claimed, but was "more suggestive of a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness".

"The weight of the evidence, however, points to a finding that they knew they were acting dishonestly and I am unable to conclude otherwise," he wrote.

They had acted dishonestly and were involved in conspiracies to misuse church funds, says judge
The long-running legal battle over the misuse of City Harvest Church (CHC) funds yesterday resulted in all six accused being convicted of multimillion-dollar fraud.
Some of them, including the church's charismatic 51-year-old founder Kong Hee, were found guilty of secretly funnelling $24 million of church funds into sham investments to bankroll the controversial pop music career of his wife Ho Yeow Sun. And some were guilty of devising plans to use a further $26 million to cover these tracks.
In a courtroom packed with close to 70 church supporters, Judge See Kee Oon ruled that the six had "acted dishonestly" and were involved in conspiracies to misuse church building funds for the Crossover Project - a CHC mission to evangelise through Ms Ho's music. They also defrauded auditors by falsifying accounts.
"Each of them participated and functioned in their own way as crucial cogs in the machinery," said Judge See, who singled out Kong as the spiritual leader the other defendants had trusted.
They are: former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, 55; former CHC finance managers Serina Wee, 38, and Sharon Tan, 40; deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42; and former CHC finance committee member John Lam, 47.
The mammoth trial has captured public attention as tales of extravagant spending by Kong and his wife emerged along with details of an intricate financial fraud.
After 140 days of trial proceedings which began in May 2013, all six arrived in court to hear the verdict in good spirits with their families in tow. Minutes before the hearing began, they were chatting and joking with each other in the dock.
Chew told The Straits Times he was at peace and unafraid, while Tan Ye Peng flashed a thumbs up sign at the defence lawyers.
Some of the church's supporters had queued overnight for a coveted pass into the courtroom, and about 60 people who did not manage to get a ticket were outside, eyes glued to their phones for updates.
But moments after Judge See started delivering his verdict, the mood darkened. Smiles faded and the six stared glumly ahead.
The judge addressed them in sequence, pronouncing the six guilty of all charges - which involved varying counts of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.
Most of them hung their heads low in the dock. Sharon Tan and Wee were seen wiping away tears.
After the hearing, Senior Counsels Edwin Tong, Andre Maniam and N. Sreenivasan - lawyers for Kong, Wee and Tan Ye Peng, respectively - said it was still "too early" to say whether or not their clients would appeal.
Lawyers on both sides are due back in court on Nov 20 to deliver oral submissions on sentencing.
A maximum cumulative sentence of 20 years can be imposed on the accused, in addition to a fine.
In a statement released by the church, Kong's wife Ho, who is also CHC's executive director, said: "We have placed our faith in God and trust that whatever the outcome, He will use it for our good."
Some of those found guilty stuck to their guns. "It's been a very long trial, and someone prudent would have been prepared for conviction. But, of course, we were always believing in our acquittal," said Lam.
Chew said: "I still believe in justice, that the innocent will be set free. And I believe I am innocent."

---

Hiding unlawful conduct, siphoning funds, fraud...
They had engaged in covert operations and concealed their unlawful conduct. They had knowingly siphoned millions from the church to fund the expensive music career of the pastor's wife.
And they had defrauded auditors with falsified accounts and conspired with the intention to cause wrongful loss to City Harvest Church (CHC).
The list of misdeeds at the end of Judge See Kee Oon's 15-page oral judgment read like a damning coda to the City Harvest trial.
In the judgment, he wrote that the weight of the evidence had led him to find all six City Harvest co- accused guilty of all the charges made out against them.
The six - including senior pastor Kong Hee, 51 - had stood trial on varying charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.
For each count of criminal breach of trust, the six could face up to 10 years' jail and a fine. The falsification of accounts carries a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
The maximum jail sentence that District Court judges can impose is 10 years per charge, or a cumulative sentence of up to 20 years.
The other accused are deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42; former CHC finance managers Serina Wee, 38, and Sharon Tan, 40; former CHC finance committee member John Lam, 47; and former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, 55.
Bail of $1 million was extended to Kong, Tan Ye Peng, Chew and Lam. It was set at $750,000 for Sharon Tan and Wee. Wee was previously out on bail for $500,000. All six are barred from travelling overseas.
Judge See noted that although there was no evidence of any wrongful gain by the accused, this did not factor in his decision as the prosecution's case was "premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation of CHC's funds".
Nor did it matter ultimately if the accused had "trusted completely the leadership of Kong Hee" and acted in accordance with his instructions.
"But no matter how pure the motive or how ingrained the trust in one's leaders... these do not exonerate an accused person from criminal liability if all the elements of an offence are made out," he wrote.
The six had misused some $50 million in church building funds earmarked for building-related expenses or investments.
First, $24 million was invested in bonds from music production company Xtron and glass-maker Firna that were in fact used to fund the Crossover Project - a mission to evangelise through Ms Ho Yeow Sun's music.
Later, $26 million was used to cover up the initial misdeed.
Judge See noted that Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments but were "wrong use" of the building fund.
Furthermore, he said, the accused went ahead with the $13 million Xtron bonds, even though album sales projections indicated that only about 200,000 copies would be sold, making far less money than that needed to redeem the bonds on time. The defendants then devised plans to funnel funds to Xtron "under the guise of legitimate transactions" to help it solve its cashflow difficulties.
They also hid the fact from auditors that the company was controlled by Kong and Tan Ye Peng.
"I do not accept that they genuinely believed that the sale of Sun Ho's music albums would generate sufficient profit for CHC to enjoy financial return," wrote Judge See, noting that Ms Ho's "perceived success" was inflated as album sales were boosted by the church.
Similarly, the "primary purpose" of the $11 million in Firna bonds was to channel money from the church to the Crossover Project.
Judge See said he did not buy the defence's argument that money spent on Crossover had a dual purpose of being an investment and serving a "missions" purpose.
"These are creative labels tacked on in an attempt to strain and stretch the plain meaning of the word 'investment'," he said.
He said the "round-tripping" transactions devised were merely to give the appearance the bonds were redeemed. "The substance of it was that CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself," he wrote.
Judge See noted the paper trail left by the accused did not indicate innocence, as the defence claimed, but was "more suggestive of a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness".
"The weight of the evidence, however, points to a finding that they knew they were acting dishonestly and I am unable to conclude otherwise," he wrote.
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/71722-six-accused-in-city-harvest-trial-guilty-of-all-charges#sthash.RKlDRsKv.dpuf

They had acted dishonestly and were involved in conspiracies to misuse church funds, says judge
The long-running legal battle over the misuse of City Harvest Church (CHC) funds yesterday resulted in all six accused being convicted of multimillion-dollar fraud.
Some of them, including the church's charismatic 51-year-old founder Kong Hee, were found guilty of secretly funnelling $24 million of church funds into sham investments to bankroll the controversial pop music career of his wife Ho Yeow Sun. And some were guilty of devising plans to use a further $26 million to cover these tracks.
In a courtroom packed with close to 70 church supporters, Judge See Kee Oon ruled that the six had "acted dishonestly" and were involved in conspiracies to misuse church building funds for the Crossover Project - a CHC mission to evangelise through Ms Ho's music. They also defrauded auditors by falsifying accounts.
"Each of them participated and functioned in their own way as crucial cogs in the machinery," said Judge See, who singled out Kong as the spiritual leader the other defendants had trusted.
They are: former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, 55; former CHC finance managers Serina Wee, 38, and Sharon Tan, 40; deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42; and former CHC finance committee member John Lam, 47.
The mammoth trial has captured public attention as tales of extravagant spending by Kong and his wife emerged along with details of an intricate financial fraud.
After 140 days of trial proceedings which began in May 2013, all six arrived in court to hear the verdict in good spirits with their families in tow. Minutes before the hearing began, they were chatting and joking with each other in the dock.
Chew told The Straits Times he was at peace and unafraid, while Tan Ye Peng flashed a thumbs up sign at the defence lawyers.
Some of the church's supporters had queued overnight for a coveted pass into the courtroom, and about 60 people who did not manage to get a ticket were outside, eyes glued to their phones for updates.
But moments after Judge See started delivering his verdict, the mood darkened. Smiles faded and the six stared glumly ahead.
The judge addressed them in sequence, pronouncing the six guilty of all charges - which involved varying counts of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.
Most of them hung their heads low in the dock. Sharon Tan and Wee were seen wiping away tears.
After the hearing, Senior Counsels Edwin Tong, Andre Maniam and N. Sreenivasan - lawyers for Kong, Wee and Tan Ye Peng, respectively - said it was still "too early" to say whether or not their clients would appeal.
Lawyers on both sides are due back in court on Nov 20 to deliver oral submissions on sentencing.
A maximum cumulative sentence of 20 years can be imposed on the accused, in addition to a fine.
In a statement released by the church, Kong's wife Ho, who is also CHC's executive director, said: "We have placed our faith in God and trust that whatever the outcome, He will use it for our good."
Some of those found guilty stuck to their guns. "It's been a very long trial, and someone prudent would have been prepared for conviction. But, of course, we were always believing in our acquittal," said Lam.
Chew said: "I still believe in justice, that the innocent will be set free. And I believe I am innocent."

---

Hiding unlawful conduct, siphoning funds, fraud...
They had engaged in covert operations and concealed their unlawful conduct. They had knowingly siphoned millions from the church to fund the expensive music career of the pastor's wife.
And they had defrauded auditors with falsified accounts and conspired with the intention to cause wrongful loss to City Harvest Church (CHC).
The list of misdeeds at the end of Judge See Kee Oon's 15-page oral judgment read like a damning coda to the City Harvest trial.
In the judgment, he wrote that the weight of the evidence had led him to find all six City Harvest co- accused guilty of all the charges made out against them.
The six - including senior pastor Kong Hee, 51 - had stood trial on varying charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.
For each count of criminal breach of trust, the six could face up to 10 years' jail and a fine. The falsification of accounts carries a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
The maximum jail sentence that District Court judges can impose is 10 years per charge, or a cumulative sentence of up to 20 years.
The other accused are deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42; former CHC finance managers Serina Wee, 38, and Sharon Tan, 40; former CHC finance committee member John Lam, 47; and former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, 55.
Bail of $1 million was extended to Kong, Tan Ye Peng, Chew and Lam. It was set at $750,000 for Sharon Tan and Wee. Wee was previously out on bail for $500,000. All six are barred from travelling overseas.
Judge See noted that although there was no evidence of any wrongful gain by the accused, this did not factor in his decision as the prosecution's case was "premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation of CHC's funds".
Nor did it matter ultimately if the accused had "trusted completely the leadership of Kong Hee" and acted in accordance with his instructions.
"But no matter how pure the motive or how ingrained the trust in one's leaders... these do not exonerate an accused person from criminal liability if all the elements of an offence are made out," he wrote.
The six had misused some $50 million in church building funds earmarked for building-related expenses or investments.
First, $24 million was invested in bonds from music production company Xtron and glass-maker Firna that were in fact used to fund the Crossover Project - a mission to evangelise through Ms Ho Yeow Sun's music.
Later, $26 million was used to cover up the initial misdeed.
Judge See noted that Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments but were "wrong use" of the building fund.
Furthermore, he said, the accused went ahead with the $13 million Xtron bonds, even though album sales projections indicated that only about 200,000 copies would be sold, making far less money than that needed to redeem the bonds on time. The defendants then devised plans to funnel funds to Xtron "under the guise of legitimate transactions" to help it solve its cashflow difficulties.
They also hid the fact from auditors that the company was controlled by Kong and Tan Ye Peng.
"I do not accept that they genuinely believed that the sale of Sun Ho's music albums would generate sufficient profit for CHC to enjoy financial return," wrote Judge See, noting that Ms Ho's "perceived success" was inflated as album sales were boosted by the church.
Similarly, the "primary purpose" of the $11 million in Firna bonds was to channel money from the church to the Crossover Project.
Judge See said he did not buy the defence's argument that money spent on Crossover had a dual purpose of being an investment and serving a "missions" purpose.
"These are creative labels tacked on in an attempt to strain and stretch the plain meaning of the word 'investment'," he said.
He said the "round-tripping" transactions devised were merely to give the appearance the bonds were redeemed. "The substance of it was that CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself," he wrote.
Judge See noted the paper trail left by the accused did not indicate innocence, as the defence claimed, but was "more suggestive of a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness".
"The weight of the evidence, however, points to a finding that they knew they were acting dishonestly and I am unable to conclude otherwise," he wrote.
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/71722-six-accused-in-city-harvest-trial-guilty-of-all-charges#sthash.RKlDRsKv.dpuf

They had acted dishonestly and were involved in conspiracies to misuse church funds, says judge
The long-running legal battle over the misuse of City Harvest Church (CHC) funds yesterday resulted in all six accused being convicted of multimillion-dollar fraud.
Some of them, including the church's charismatic 51-year-old founder Kong Hee, were found guilty of secretly funnelling $24 million of church funds into sham investments to bankroll the controversial pop music career of his wife Ho Yeow Sun. And some were guilty of devising plans to use a further $26 million to cover these tracks.
In a courtroom packed with close to 70 church supporters, Judge See Kee Oon ruled that the six had "acted dishonestly" and were involved in conspiracies to misuse church building funds for the Crossover Project - a CHC mission to evangelise through Ms Ho's music. They also defrauded auditors by falsifying accounts.
"Each of them participated and functioned in their own way as crucial cogs in the machinery," said Judge See, who singled out Kong as the spiritual leader the other defendants had trusted.
They are: former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, 55; former CHC finance managers Serina Wee, 38, and Sharon Tan, 40; deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42; and former CHC finance committee member John Lam, 47.
The mammoth trial has captured public attention as tales of extravagant spending by Kong and his wife emerged along with details of an intricate financial fraud.
After 140 days of trial proceedings which began in May 2013, all six arrived in court to hear the verdict in good spirits with their families in tow. Minutes before the hearing began, they were chatting and joking with each other in the dock.
Chew told The Straits Times he was at peace and unafraid, while Tan Ye Peng flashed a thumbs up sign at the defence lawyers.
Some of the church's supporters had queued overnight for a coveted pass into the courtroom, and about 60 people who did not manage to get a ticket were outside, eyes glued to their phones for updates.
But moments after Judge See started delivering his verdict, the mood darkened. Smiles faded and the six stared glumly ahead.
The judge addressed them in sequence, pronouncing the six guilty of all charges - which involved varying counts of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.
Most of them hung their heads low in the dock. Sharon Tan and Wee were seen wiping away tears.
After the hearing, Senior Counsels Edwin Tong, Andre Maniam and N. Sreenivasan - lawyers for Kong, Wee and Tan Ye Peng, respectively - said it was still "too early" to say whether or not their clients would appeal.
Lawyers on both sides are due back in court on Nov 20 to deliver oral submissions on sentencing.
A maximum cumulative sentence of 20 years can be imposed on the accused, in addition to a fine.
In a statement released by the church, Kong's wife Ho, who is also CHC's executive director, said: "We have placed our faith in God and trust that whatever the outcome, He will use it for our good."
Some of those found guilty stuck to their guns. "It's been a very long trial, and someone prudent would have been prepared for conviction. But, of course, we were always believing in our acquittal," said Lam.
Chew said: "I still believe in justice, that the innocent will be set free. And I believe I am innocent."

---

Hiding unlawful conduct, siphoning funds, fraud...
They had engaged in covert operations and concealed their unlawful conduct. They had knowingly siphoned millions from the church to fund the expensive music career of the pastor's wife.
And they had defrauded auditors with falsified accounts and conspired with the intention to cause wrongful loss to City Harvest Church (CHC).
The list of misdeeds at the end of Judge See Kee Oon's 15-page oral judgment read like a damning coda to the City Harvest trial.
In the judgment, he wrote that the weight of the evidence had led him to find all six City Harvest co- accused guilty of all the charges made out against them.
The six - including senior pastor Kong Hee, 51 - had stood trial on varying charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.
For each count of criminal breach of trust, the six could face up to 10 years' jail and a fine. The falsification of accounts carries a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
The maximum jail sentence that District Court judges can impose is 10 years per charge, or a cumulative sentence of up to 20 years.
The other accused are deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42; former CHC finance managers Serina Wee, 38, and Sharon Tan, 40; former CHC finance committee member John Lam, 47; and former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, 55.
Bail of $1 million was extended to Kong, Tan Ye Peng, Chew and Lam. It was set at $750,000 for Sharon Tan and Wee. Wee was previously out on bail for $500,000. All six are barred from travelling overseas.
Judge See noted that although there was no evidence of any wrongful gain by the accused, this did not factor in his decision as the prosecution's case was "premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation of CHC's funds".
Nor did it matter ultimately if the accused had "trusted completely the leadership of Kong Hee" and acted in accordance with his instructions.
"But no matter how pure the motive or how ingrained the trust in one's leaders... these do not exonerate an accused person from criminal liability if all the elements of an offence are made out," he wrote.
The six had misused some $50 million in church building funds earmarked for building-related expenses or investments.
First, $24 million was invested in bonds from music production company Xtron and glass-maker Firna that were in fact used to fund the Crossover Project - a mission to evangelise through Ms Ho Yeow Sun's music.
Later, $26 million was used to cover up the initial misdeed.
Judge See noted that Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments but were "wrong use" of the building fund.
Furthermore, he said, the accused went ahead with the $13 million Xtron bonds, even though album sales projections indicated that only about 200,000 copies would be sold, making far less money than that needed to redeem the bonds on time. The defendants then devised plans to funnel funds to Xtron "under the guise of legitimate transactions" to help it solve its cashflow difficulties.
They also hid the fact from auditors that the company was controlled by Kong and Tan Ye Peng.
"I do not accept that they genuinely believed that the sale of Sun Ho's music albums would generate sufficient profit for CHC to enjoy financial return," wrote Judge See, noting that Ms Ho's "perceived success" was inflated as album sales were boosted by the church.
Similarly, the "primary purpose" of the $11 million in Firna bonds was to channel money from the church to the Crossover Project.
Judge See said he did not buy the defence's argument that money spent on Crossover had a dual purpose of being an investment and serving a "missions" purpose.
"These are creative labels tacked on in an attempt to strain and stretch the plain meaning of the word 'investment'," he said.
He said the "round-tripping" transactions devised were merely to give the appearance the bonds were redeemed. "The substance of it was that CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself," he wrote.
Judge See noted the paper trail left by the accused did not indicate innocence, as the defence claimed, but was "more suggestive of a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness".
"The weight of the evidence, however, points to a finding that they knew they were acting dishonestly and I am unable to conclude otherwise," he wrote.
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/71722-six-accused-in-city-harvest-trial-guilty-of-all-charges#sthash.RKlDRsKv.dpuf

Kong Hee 'key man behind church scandal' (ST: 23 Oct 2015)

Kong Hee exaggerated the success of his wife's music career, was in control of the supposedly independent firm that managed her, and played a key part in misleading auditors and lawyers.

And critically, it was his approval and guidance that was sought by his five accomplices in their misuse of City Harvest Church (CHC) funds.

This was what Judge See Kee Oon said of Kong, the church's founder, in his 270-page written judgment obtained by The Straits Times yesterday - making clear that it was the 51-year-old who was first and foremost behind the scandal.

On Wednesday, the judge convicted Kong, former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han, former CHC finance managers Serina Wee and Sharon Tan, deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, and former CHC finance committee member John Lam of misusing some $50 million in church funds. Of this amount, some $24 million was invested in sham bonds to bankroll Ms Ho Yeow Sun's pop music career, as part of the Crossover project - Kong's brainchild to spread his church's message through popular culture.

The project was initially funded directly by the church, but that all changed in January 2003 when church member Roland Poon alleged that the church's building fund had been used to finance Ms Ho's burgeoning music career.


Mr Poon would go on to retract the allegations and apologise.

At the time, the judge pointed out, Kong had "emphatically" insisted that no church funds were ever used - in his own words "not a single cent" - to support his wife's music career and boost her sales.

"But this is again flatly contradicted by the evidence that emerged at the trial," wrote the judge, one of several contradictions he highlighted between Kong's testimony and the facts.

To avoid misconceptions that Ms Ho's music career was "not real" and CHC money was spent in a "cavalier and flippant" manner to promote it, it was Kong who decided on the need to be discreet on how the church went about funding the Crossover. "Kong Hee took overall charge of the Crossover and all matters pertaining to the budgeting and financing of the project came under his supervision and instruction," wrote the judge.

Xtron was set up by three of the accused to manage Ms Ho. It had its own directors, but it was Kong alone who made decisions regarding his wife's music career and how much to spend. Kong's claim that he had "significant influence" over Xtron but not control over it was a matter of semantics, ruled the judge. "The essential point is simply that he never believed that the Xtron directors presented any impediment to his ability to do what he wished with Xtron."


And that included control of the money Xtron received when the church "invested" millions into bonds issued by the firm. The judge agreed with the prosecution that the bonds were a sham and simply a way through which CHC could fund Ms Ho's pop music.

"I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Kong Hee did not believe that the Xtron bonds were genuine investments," he wrote.

He also dismissed Kong's defence that he regularly consulted auditors and lawyers, with no red flags raised. "But there was an important gap in their knowledge, which was the true nature of the relationship between CHC and Xtron." He ruled that Kong contributed in misleading auditors.

Judge See noted that Kong would not have been able to act alone, and "orchestrate, monitor and manage every move". His five accomplices had also knowingly committed the crimes and were "willing and eager" to be led by Kong, he wrote.

But he reserved his strongest words for the church founder, who was found guilty of three counts of criminal breach of trust.

He described Kong as having a tendency to embellish or exaggerate. The judge said Kong could not have been ignorant that his wife did not actually appear on "official" Chinese government-issued first day covers, or sing the official Special Olympics theme song - all of which he claimed she did.

And as to Kong's claims that he was not an expert in legal matters, Judge See said one did not have to be such an expert "to appreciate certain fundamental aspects of honesty, truth and integrity".

The judge will hand down sentences on Nov 20 at the earliest.

CLAIMS AND CONTRADICTIONS
Kong Hee maintains that he is a pastor and not an expert in legality. But one does not need to be an expert in legality to appreciate certain fundamental aspects of honesty, truth and integrity.
JUDGE SEE KEE OON, who in his written judgment highlighted several contradictions between Kong Hee's testimony and the facts

• Difficult time, says Kong Hee on Facebook

  In his first public comments since he was convicted of multimillion-dollar fraud, City Harvest Church senior pastor Kong Hee said yesterday: "This is a difficult time for me, and especially for my family, just as it is for the other co-accused persons." In a Facebook post addressed to his church and supporters, he added: "As was the case throughout these past three years of court trial, and the earlier two years of investigation, I have put my faith and my all in God, and trust that whatever the outcome, He will use it for good in His time and in His way."
  The court had found Kong guilty of three counts of criminal breach of trust in a long-running court case involving the misuse of $50 million in church funds.
  Kong asked his supporters to continue praying for him and those involved in the trial.
  "The days and steps ahead are challenging, but with God's grace and love, I have no fear. The Lord Jesus, my Good Shepherd, will lead and guide. I will obey, I will follow, by faith," said Kong.
  Kong's lawyer, Senior Counsel Edwin Tong, told reporters on Wednesday that they needed to study the written grounds of decision before deciding whether or not to appeal.
  Danson Cheong
  

Transcript of the CHC guilty verdict (Middleground: 21 Oct 2015)

IT WAS judgement day for the six members embroiled in the City Harvest Church case that spanned over 140 days. Senior Pastor and Founder Kong Hee, Deputy Senior Pastor Tan Ye Peng, Member of Investment Committee John Lam, former Fund Manager Chew Eng Han, former Finance Manager Serina Wee, and her successor Sharon Tan were arrested in 2012 following a probe into financial irregularities by the Commissioner of Charities and the Commercial Affairs Department.

And the verdict? Guilty. All six were found guilty of all charges laid against them – criminal breach of trust and falsifying of accounts.

Explaining his judgement, Justice See Kee Oon told the court that all six members were “crucial cogs in the machine” in the plan to defraud City Harvest Church.

If you want to know what he said in the courtroom today, here’s an excerpt:

The six accused persons were tried primarily on charges of conspiring to commit criminal breach of trust or CBT by dishonestly misappropriating funds belonging to City Harvest Church that had been to entrusted to one or more of them.

The first group (of charges) comprises the 1st to 3rd charges and pertains to what have been referred to in the course of the trial as “sham bond investments”. The second … 4th to 6th charges pertain to what has been termed “round-tripping”.

A third group of charges, the 7th to 10th, concerns falsification of accounts in CHC’s books relating to the round-tripping transactions. I do not propose to set out the evidence as it is lengthy and voluminous. It suffices to note that the main background facts are largely undisputed or uncontroversial.

I will set out my findings in relation to the elements of the offence of CBT first, leaving aside the issue of dishonesty. I will then focus… on the extent of the accused persons’ knowledge and involvement in the plans to use funds belonging to CHC for the Crossover Project, which I will prefer to as “the Crossover”, and on whether their conduct in the circumstances shows that they had acted with dishonest intent.

First, I am satisfied that Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng, and John Lam Leng Hung were as members of CHC’s management board each entrusted with dominion over CHC’s funds, whether in the Building Fund or the General Fund. Second, I am bound to hold that they were entrusted with such dominion in the way of their business as agents because, being board members, they were so entrusted in their capacities as agents of CHC. Third, I am satisfied that the various plans to use CHC’s funds amounted to putting these funds to unauthorised or wrong use.

Let me now turn to the wrong use of CHC’s funds. The Building Fund was a restricted fund that could be used only for building-related expenses or investments for financial return. I find that the Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments but were wrong use of the Building Fund. I find also that charges 10 and 11 of the Special Opportunities Fund, or SOF, were not genuine investments but were transactions designed to create the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. I find, finally, that the payment under the advance rental license agreement, or ARLA, was not a building-related expense, but was a transaction designed to perpetuate the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. They were, therefore, all wrong uses of CHC’s funds. I turn next to the accused persons’ involvement and knowledge in the various plans to use CHC’s funds.

The accused persons understood that Kong Hee’s preference to be discreet about the funding for the Crossover was for the sake of ensuring the success of the Crossover. But being discreet was also synonymous with non-disclosure and misstatements. Kong Hee had explained that it was his preference to avoid disclosure of CHC’s involvement in Xtron to avoid any misconception that Sun Ho’s secular music career was, in his words, not real, and that CHC was still using its money to promote her career. But in relation to both aspects, the evidence shows that it was true that her perceived success was inflated from rather more modest levels and Xtron and the Crossover team had to rely heavily on sponsorship from CHC members or supporters to help prop up her album sales and promote her career. When these sources of financial support which did not directly flow from CHC were insufficient, they had to come up with other means.

I will turn to the Xtron bonds now. Xtron was the special purpose vehicle for the Crossover and for this purpose Xtron was clearly under CHC’s control and not independent. The plan formulated in 2007 was that CHC’s funds specifically funds from the Building Fund would be channelled through Xtron to be used for the Crossover and the use of the funds was controlled entirely by Kong Hee and his team. In truth, this was analogous to an elaborate extension to a pattern of financial assistance via sponsorship lending or prepayment to Xtron that had already either been taking place or been contemplated prior to 2007. These were seen as short-term measures to put Xtron in funds and support the Crossover. The mindset was thus that Xtron bond issues were only yet another temporary plan, albeit one which involved borrowing from CHC’s Building Fund and hoping that the funds would somehow find their way back to CHC at some unspecified future point.

Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han and Serina Wee each clearly played a substantial role in conceiving and executing this plan to channel CHC’s Building Fund through Xtron for the Crossover. John Lam’s role was evidently less substantial, but I am satisfied that he had his own part to play as a board member and investment committee member. All of them knew that the Building Fund was a restricted fund to be used only for specific purposes. They claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were genuine investments. They believed the Xtron bonds would bring CHC financial return. But on my evaluation of the evidence, I consider that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not hold that belief. I find that the accused persons were planning on the basis of Sun Ho’s planned US Crossover album being realistically generating sales of only 200,000 units and although their projections showed that the bonds could not be redeemed by the maturity date,  they were unconcerned, since Eng Han had assured them that the maturity date for the bonds could always be extended or fresh bonds could be issued.

I am unconvinced that they could have had a genuine belief in Sun Ho’s prospects of success for the US Crossover, given their consciousness that much of her earlier success was contrived and contributed to by CHC itself. Serina readily conceded that Sun Ho’s Asian Crossover albums all made losses, and Xtron had thus incurred substantial accumulated net losses. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and John Lam also knew that CHC was involved in propping up her Mandarin album sales. I am unable to see how there can be any genuine or honest grounds for their claims that they expected far higher sales for her planned US album well in excess of the projection of 200,000 units.

This was no more than an optimistic hope. It was definitely not a realistic expectation. All this strongly militates against their claims that the Xtron bonds were motivated by the realistic prospect of financial return and they were genuine investments. Further, the accused persons were all involved in making plans to put Xtron in funds to redeem the bonds. They knew that these plans would involve CHC paying money to Xtron under the guise of legitimate transactions, when, in fact, the real concern was Xtron’s cashflow difficulties and their purported transactions were mere excuses for CHC to channel money to Xtron. Thus they knew that there was a strong possibility that the apparent financial return under the Xtron bonds would come from CHC itself. This knowledge further undermines their claim that they believe the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment.

In addition, the accused persons hid or obscured material information from others. Eng Han and John Lam kept the truth about the Xtron bonds from Charlie Lay. All of them at various times gave the auditors the impression that CHC and Xtron were independent of each other, when they knew that Kong Hee, in fact, made all decisions on Xtron’s behalf in relation to the Crossover without reference to the Xtron directors who were mere figureheads. The auditors were not told that Xtron was, in fact, controlled by Kong Hee and Ye Peng, and that they, together with their co-accused, will exercise control over the use of the bond proceeds. There is no doubt that they knew that they had something to hide. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the accused persons knew that the Xtron bonds were conceived first and foremost to support the Crossover and not for financial return. The prospect of any financial return was a secondary consideration, at best, and, even then, I do not accept that they genuinely believed that the sale of Sun Ho’s music albums would generate sufficient profit for CHC to enjoy financial return. They knew that any financial return to CHC might be illusory, in the sense that it was CHC’s own money that might need to be channelled to Xtron to redeem the bonds. Given their knowledge, I cannot accept their claims that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment.

Accordingly, they caused CHC to subscribe to $13 million in Xtron bonds, knowing that they were not legally entitled to do so. Thus, they acted dishonestly. And I find that the 1st and 2nd charges have been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.

In respect of the Firna bonds, the accused persons knew — all knew — that the primary purpose of the bonds was also to channel money from CHC’s Building Fund to the Crossover. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng an and Serina knew that they and not Wahju Hanafi  were the ones controlling the Firna bond proceeds, and deciding how the proceeds should be applied towards the Crossover. Yet, they took the inaccurate position that Wahju was somehow independently supporting the Crossover using his personal monies, and this was what they told the auditors and lawyers. They knew that the financial return under the Firna bonds would not come from the profits of Firna’s glass factory business but depended entirely on the success of the Crossover. If the revenue from Sun Ho’s albums was not adequate, they would find alternative sources of funds for Firna and that might include channelling CHC’s own money into Firna through various means.

Given this knowledge, I do not think Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina could have believed that the Firna bonds would generate financial returns for CHC and so they could not have believed that the bonds were a genuine investment. John Lam was further removed from the Firna bonds than the other accused persons, but he signed the secret letter that secured the signature of Wahju’s father-in-law on the Firna BSA. I am satisfied that he knew  that the prospect of financial return of CHC did not depend on the success of Firna’s glass factory business. He knew that it was a very real possibility that the Crossover would not be profitable. Thus, I find that he, too, did not believe that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, meaning that he did not think the bonds were a genuine investment. Therefore, in causing CHC to subscribe to the $11 million in Firna bonds, the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to do so. They thus acted dishonestly. As such, I find that the 3rd charge has been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.

At the centre of the 1st to 3rd charges is how the Building Fund came to be applied for the Crossover when it was a restricted fund for specific purposes, either for building or investment. In my judgment, the crossover was not one of these purposes. It was not an investment, since, by their own characterisation, it was meant to serve a missions purpose all along. I’m not convinced that there was any mixed motive, dual purpose, or hybrid intent behind the use of the Building Fund. These are creative labels tacked on in an attempt to strain and stretch the mean, the plain meaning of the word “investment”. They were plainly fabricated in an attempt to justify their past conduct and misuse of the Building Fund. I do not see how they can be said to have acted in good faith in relation to the charges they face.

The accused persons have, of course, pointed to the fact that the money did come back to CHC with interest, however, this is patently due to their efforts to put Xtron, Firna and AMAC in the funds to facilitate these repayments through the round-tripping transactions. It does not confirm that there was any actual intention at the outset to invest for the purpose of maximising returns. What is more telling is that it was consistently represented to CHC’s executive members that investing the Building Fund in this fashion was meant to maximise returns. There was no mention at all that the investment was in the Crossover, let alone that it was for spiritual returns or for both spiritual and financial return from the Crossover. The failure to mention those facts buttresses my conclusion that the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into the Xtron and Firna bonds.

I turn now to the round-tripping and falsification of accounts charges. As revealed by evidence, there was never any financial return derived from any of Xtron’s and firna’s Crossover-related activities. Instead, when the time came to deal with the auditors’ queries and to address Sim Guan Seng’s concerns, they resorted to removing more funds from the Building Fund and also the General Fund under the pretext of making further investments in the Special Opportunity Fund and purportedly for a building purchase by Xtron through the ARLA. The round-tripping transactions were crafted to create the appearance that these were genuine transactions involving the redemption of bonds when they were not. They were not genuine transactions, because the accused persons controlled these transactions every step of the way, and the substance of it was that CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself.

Given that Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon Tan were fully aware of the whole series of transactions, they could not have believed that they were genuine investments or that the payment under the ARLA was a building-related expense. They say that they viewed all this as restructuring, but that, to my mind, is fundamentally inconsistent with her  belief that the transactions were genuine investments or building-related expenses. This inability to provide a coherent explanation for their conduct strongly suggests that they knew they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into these transactions. They may have apprised the CHC board of an earlier version of the transactions, but they kept that knowledge from the lawyers and the auditors.

Taking into account all the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the 4th to 6th charges have been made out against them. I am also satisfied that there was falsification of CHC’s accounts following from the attempts to disguise the SOF and ARLA transactions as genuine transactions.

In relation to the 9th charge, the accounting entry recording a redemption of Xtron bonds in the form of a set-off against advance rental was false because it was not a case of CHC and Xtron making independent decisions to pay advance rental on one hand and redeem bonds on the other. I find that the accused persons knew that false accounting entries would have to be made pursuant to their plan to create the appearance of redemption of bonds and, hence, I find that they each had intent to defraud.

I am, therefore, satisfied that the 7th to 10th charges have been made out against Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon. I note that there was an extensive record which comprised an elaborate patchwork of emails, BlackBerry messages, phone SMSs, hard copy documents and numerous other documented exchanges in some form or other. The fact that there was a mass of available evidence which when woven together amounted to a paper trail is not necessarily indicative of innocence. In my view, insofar as much of it was incriminating, it is more suggestive of a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness, demonstrating that the accused persons were over-confident in their belief that they could replace the funds in time before suspicions were aroused.

The case against the accused persons depended heavily on inferences to be drawn from the objective
evidence. Much of these inferences can be readily drawn as the tenor and language in the communications adduced at trial, strongly point to their dishonest intent. In short, the documentary evidence goes a long way in demonstrating their subjectively  guilty knowledge. I am not convinced that they have raised any reasonable doubt in this regard. I find that the accused persons were variously inextricably entangled in two conspiracies to misuse CHC’s funds. One conspiracy consisted of misusing Building Fund monies for the Crossover, and the other involved misusing CHC’s funds, a substantial portion of which comprised Building Fund monies to create the appearance of bond redemptions and to defraud the auditors via falsified accounts through the various roles they played.

Each of them participated  and functioned in their own way, as crucial cogs in the machinery. Although here are distinctions in their respective levels of knowledge and participation, I am unable to discern any rational basis to exclude any of them from being implicated and being characterised as conspirators. Much of the defence centred on the beliefs and motivations of the accused persons. If it can be shown that they genuinely, honestly and reasonably held the view that what they were doing was legitimate in the sense that they were legally entitled to do it, and they went ahead to act in good faith as a result. I think there may well be room for doubt as to whether they act had acted dishonestly. The weight of the evidence, however, points to a finding that they knew they were acting dishonestly, and I am unable to conclude otherwise.

Where professional advice was sought, this was really mainly an attempt to seek out self-supporting
confirmatory advice based on selectively disclosed information. They omitted mention of the crucial fact that CHC remained in control of Xtron and would correspondingly control the use of the funds. They provided leading questions for belief, confirmation and support from only those advisers whom they trusted to support the Crossover vision and were quick to reject or filter out any dis-confirming information. The accused persons chose to support the Crossover vision and to act and participate in acts in support of it. The Crossover became a comprehensive logic for justifying their beliefs and actions. And for doing whatever was expedient for its advancement.

The pervasive mindset seemed to be one of short-term expediency. The use of means involving dubious methods was worth the risk to them if there was some hope of longer-term gain. In their defence, all the accused persons testified largely to the same effect. They loved CHC and would not have wished to do harm to CHC. They never intended to cause loss to CHC. They consulted and cleared their proposed with their lawyers, the auditors and the CHC board. They were motivated by CHC’s cultural mandate and they believed in the Crossover vision. They pointed to pure motives and a justifiable purpose in the use of CHC funds. And ultimately, the funds which were removed were for church purposes and were returned to CHC.

The crux of their defence was that there was no conspiracy and no dishonesty. … and
the ultimate objectives were in furtherance of the Great Commission. It may be arguable that all of them thought they were not acting dishonestly to cause wrongful loss since no permanent loss was intended, but this was premised on their unquestioning trust and belief in Kong Hee and their confidence that the Crossover would succeed. Thus they convinced themselves that it was both morally and legally permissible to trailer use the money from CHC’s funds when they knew it was not.

The accused persons chose to engage in covert operations and conspiratorial cover-ups. They contrived to create cover stories and clever round trips concealing their unlawful conduct. They chose to participate in the conspiracy to misuse CHC’s funds, which includes siphoning off large amounts from the Building Fund for Sun Ho’s music career and eventually for the round-tripping transactions to enable the bond redemptions. They chose to defraud the auditors with falsified accounts, suggesting a series of genuine transactions for the redemption of bonds and advance rental. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a finding that they had all acted dishonestly and in breach of the trust reposed in them, and they played their respective roles in the conspiracy with intent to cause wrongful loss to CHC and to defraud the auditors. I am, therefore, satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the six accused persons are guilty of all the charges that have been brought against them. I note that all of them believed that they had acted in what they considered to be the best interests of CHC.

There is no evidence of any wrongful gain. That was never the prosecution’s case in any event, as the charges were premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation of CHC’s funds. I consider that John Lam, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon were all acting in accordance with the instructions of people they considered to be their spiritual leaders, deserving of their trust and deference, and Ye Peng, although a leader in his own right, similarly trusted completely the leadership of Kong Hee. But no matter how pure the motive, or how ingrained the trust in one’s leaders, regardless of the context in which that trust operates, these do not exonerate an accused person from criminal liability of all the elements of an offence are made out.

Sentencing will take place at a later date, with the court due to hear submissions from defence and prosecution lawyers from Nov 6 to 20.

Verdict, finally, for long-drawn case against City Harvest leaders (BT: 21 Oct 2015)

Church founder Kong Hee and his five deputies will know their fate on Wednesday

[Singapore] THE six leaders of City Harvest Church are scheduled to find out on Wednesday if they can heave a sigh of relief, after their painstakingly long trial which lasted more than two years.

Church founder Kong Hee and his five deputies - Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han, John Lam, Sharon Tan and Serina Wee - are fighting allegations that they conspired to misuse church funds to the tune of millions of dollars to further the music career of singer Sun Ho, who's also Kong's wife.

Five of the six, including Kong, are said to have misused S$24 million to fuel Ho's short-lived music career, while four of the six allegedly misappropriated some S$26 million by falsifying accounts to cover up the first sum.

Right off the bat, the saga - involving leaders of one of Singapore's megachurches - packed enough drama to set tongues wagging incessantly, from the Commercial Affairs Department's investigations into certain financial transactions of the church in May 2010 to the six leaders being hauled to court to be charged two years later.

Naturally, the trial, which started in May 2013, caught the attention of many and the public gallery was packed for weeks, with some queueing outside the State Courts for a ticket to enter the courtroom.

In the days that followed, barbs were traded between the prosecution and the defence, and Ms Ho's pop music career - five Mandarin albums released between 2002 and 2007, and a yet-to-be-released English album - came under intense scrutiny.

The court was told that Ms Ho's foray into the US market involved a marketing budget of more than S$10 million and was described as being "in line with Shakira's marketing budget and less than the budget for Beyonce".

Email correspondences submitted in court showed that Kong had told the American music producers to "plan as if the sky's the limit" in their budgeting.

The push to promote Ms Ho's pop music is part of the Crossover Project to reach out to non-Christians.

Kong and his deputies had maintained that the board and church members knew about and supported the project, in which they poured millions into financing Ms Ho's secular music to evangelise. A key defence was that the six accused had acted on the advice of their lawyers and auditors, who cleared those financial transactions in question.

But the prosecution's position is that the six were sophisticated liars and had conspired to channel the monies to boost Ms Ho's career via "sham bond investments". Its case is that the group had "round-tripped" transactions to cover up the misdeed.

Whichever way the verdict swings, parties can still lodge an appeal so the finale might just be delayed.

Church founder Kong Hee and his five deputies will know their fate on Wednesday
[Singapore] THE six leaders of City Harvest Church are scheduled to find out on Wednesday if they can heave a sigh of relief, after their painstakingly long trial which lasted more than two years.
Church founder Kong Hee and his five deputies - Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han, John Lam, Sharon Tan and Serina Wee - are fighting allegations that they conspired to misuse church funds to the tune of millions of dollars to further the music career of singer Sun Ho, who's also Kong's wife.
Five of the six, including Kong, are said to have misused S$24 million to fuel Ho's short-lived music career, while four of the six allegedly misappropriated some S$26 million by falsifying accounts to cover up the first sum.
Right off the bat, the saga - involving leaders of one of Singapore's megachurches - packed enough drama to set tongues wagging incessantly, from the Commercial Affairs Department's investigations into certain financial transactions of the church in May 2010 to the six leaders being hauled to court to be charged two years later.
Naturally, the trial, which started in May 2013, caught the attention of many and the public gallery was packed for weeks, with some queueing outside the State Courts for a ticket to enter the courtroom.
In the days that followed, barbs were traded between the prosecution and the defence, and Ms Ho's pop music career - five Mandarin albums released between 2002 and 2007, and a yet-to-be-released English album - came under intense scrutiny.
The court was told that Ms Ho's foray into the US market involved a marketing budget of more than S$10 million and was described as being "in line with Shakira's marketing budget and less than the budget for Beyonce".
Email correspondences submitted in court showed that Kong had told the American music producers to "plan as if the sky's the limit" in their budgeting.
The push to promote Ms Ho's pop music is part of the Crossover Project to reach out to non-Christians.
Kong and his deputies had maintained that the board and church members knew about and supported the project, in which they poured millions into financing Ms Ho's secular music to evangelise. A key defence was that the six accused had acted on the advice of their lawyers and auditors, who cleared those financial transactions in question.
But the prosecution's position is that the six were sophisticated liars and had conspired to channel the monies to boost Ms Ho's career via "sham bond investments". Its case is that the group had "round-tripped" transactions to cover up the misdeed.
Whichever way the verdict swings, parties can still lodge an appeal so the finale might just be delayed.
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/71680-verdict-finally-for-long-drawn-case-against-city-harvest-leaders#sthash.PLtEvInQ.dpuf

Church founder Kong Hee and his five deputies will know their fate on Wednesday
[Singapore] THE six leaders of City Harvest Church are scheduled to find out on Wednesday if they can heave a sigh of relief, after their painstakingly long trial which lasted more than two years.
Church founder Kong Hee and his five deputies - Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han, John Lam, Sharon Tan and Serina Wee - are fighting allegations that they conspired to misuse church funds to the tune of millions of dollars to further the music career of singer Sun Ho, who's also Kong's wife.
Five of the six, including Kong, are said to have misused S$24 million to fuel Ho's short-lived music career, while four of the six allegedly misappropriated some S$26 million by falsifying accounts to cover up the first sum.
Right off the bat, the saga - involving leaders of one of Singapore's megachurches - packed enough drama to set tongues wagging incessantly, from the Commercial Affairs Department's investigations into certain financial transactions of the church in May 2010 to the six leaders being hauled to court to be charged two years later.
Naturally, the trial, which started in May 2013, caught the attention of many and the public gallery was packed for weeks, with some queueing outside the State Courts for a ticket to enter the courtroom.
In the days that followed, barbs were traded between the prosecution and the defence, and Ms Ho's pop music career - five Mandarin albums released between 2002 and 2007, and a yet-to-be-released English album - came under intense scrutiny.
The court was told that Ms Ho's foray into the US market involved a marketing budget of more than S$10 million and was described as being "in line with Shakira's marketing budget and less than the budget for Beyonce".
Email correspondences submitted in court showed that Kong had told the American music producers to "plan as if the sky's the limit" in their budgeting.
The push to promote Ms Ho's pop music is part of the Crossover Project to reach out to non-Christians.
Kong and his deputies had maintained that the board and church members knew about and supported the project, in which they poured millions into financing Ms Ho's secular music to evangelise. A key defence was that the six accused had acted on the advice of their lawyers and auditors, who cleared those financial transactions in question.
But the prosecution's position is that the six were sophisticated liars and had conspired to channel the monies to boost Ms Ho's career via "sham bond investments". Its case is that the group had "round-tripped" transactions to cover up the misdeed.
Whichever way the verdict swings, parties can still lodge an appeal so the finale might just be delayed.
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/71680-verdict-finally-for-long-drawn-case-against-city-harvest-leaders#sthash.PLtEvInQ.dpuf