SINGAPORE: Emails and investigation statements from
six church leaders revealed the conspiracies they hatched to commit
criminal breach of trust, said prosecutors in the ongoing City Harvest
Church (CHC) case.
This was a rebuttal to defence lawyers who said no evidence had been produced to show they misused church funds.
Church founder Kong Hee and five of his deputies are accused of misusing millions from the church's building fund to boost the career of Kong's wife, singer Sun Ho.
This was done through alleged "sham bond investments" and by round-tripping the funds.
The prosecution said the six concealed the true nature of the transactions and documents from their auditors, which was intended to funnel the money from the building fund to fund Sun Ho's career.
Taken together, the documentary evidence laid bare elaborate steps taken to hide their offences.
This includes a falsification of the church's accounts.
The six leaders have relied on the auditors' passing of the relevant CHC accounts as a defence -- which the prosecution said is misconceived, because their submissions disregarded their own 'deceptive behaviour' in concealing information from the auditors.
Earlier, defence lawyer Andre Maniam, who is acting for Serina Wee, argued that the six leaders had not acted dishonestly... as they were using church money to further the church's objectives, through the Crossover Project, even though the money came from the building fund.
"It's not dishonest and there is no intent to cause wrongful loss to the church. Church money for church purposes, that's all this case is about," Mr Maniam added.
But the prosecution disputed this, saying a similar line of argument involving former Maris Stella High School principal Anthony Tan Kim Hock had not impressed the High Court... and his conviction for misappropriating money from the school's chapel building fund was upheld.
The prosecution also dealt with arguments from Mr Michael Khoo -- the lawyer for ex-church investment manager Chew Eng Han -- who said that several of the accused persons did not have the power to decide on use of church funds by themselves, as claimed by the prosecution.
He had said that if statements had not been recorded from other board members and they had not been called to court, an adverse inference had to be drawn that their testimony would have debunked the prosecution's case.
Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh said that by law, the prosecution need only call essential witnesses.
And in this case, she added that it's clear the board members were not needed to prove the prosecution's case.
"It's redundant given the emails and documentary evidence available. The prosecution has not or cannot be seen to have concealed witnesses for the purposes of hampering the defence," Ms Chionh noted, adding that the defence is well aware of such witnesses and is capable of calling on them, if need be.
The trial has stretched more than 40 days so far, and over the past two days, the court heard submissions from both the prosecution and the defence.
Chief District Judge See Kee Oon will deliver his decision on May 5 as to whether the six accused persons have a case to answer.
This was a rebuttal to defence lawyers who said no evidence had been produced to show they misused church funds.
Church founder Kong Hee and five of his deputies are accused of misusing millions from the church's building fund to boost the career of Kong's wife, singer Sun Ho.
This was done through alleged "sham bond investments" and by round-tripping the funds.
The prosecution said the six concealed the true nature of the transactions and documents from their auditors, which was intended to funnel the money from the building fund to fund Sun Ho's career.
Taken together, the documentary evidence laid bare elaborate steps taken to hide their offences.
This includes a falsification of the church's accounts.
The six leaders have relied on the auditors' passing of the relevant CHC accounts as a defence -- which the prosecution said is misconceived, because their submissions disregarded their own 'deceptive behaviour' in concealing information from the auditors.
Earlier, defence lawyer Andre Maniam, who is acting for Serina Wee, argued that the six leaders had not acted dishonestly... as they were using church money to further the church's objectives, through the Crossover Project, even though the money came from the building fund.
"It's not dishonest and there is no intent to cause wrongful loss to the church. Church money for church purposes, that's all this case is about," Mr Maniam added.
But the prosecution disputed this, saying a similar line of argument involving former Maris Stella High School principal Anthony Tan Kim Hock had not impressed the High Court... and his conviction for misappropriating money from the school's chapel building fund was upheld.
The prosecution also dealt with arguments from Mr Michael Khoo -- the lawyer for ex-church investment manager Chew Eng Han -- who said that several of the accused persons did not have the power to decide on use of church funds by themselves, as claimed by the prosecution.
He had said that if statements had not been recorded from other board members and they had not been called to court, an adverse inference had to be drawn that their testimony would have debunked the prosecution's case.
Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh said that by law, the prosecution need only call essential witnesses.
And in this case, she added that it's clear the board members were not needed to prove the prosecution's case.
"It's redundant given the emails and documentary evidence available. The prosecution has not or cannot be seen to have concealed witnesses for the purposes of hampering the defence," Ms Chionh noted, adding that the defence is well aware of such witnesses and is capable of calling on them, if need be.
The trial has stretched more than 40 days so far, and over the past two days, the court heard submissions from both the prosecution and the defence.
Chief District Judge See Kee Oon will deliver his decision on May 5 as to whether the six accused persons have a case to answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment