[SINGAPORE]
Former fellow City Harvest Church (CHC) mates locked horns in court yet
again yesterday, as former CHC board member and church-goer Chew Eng
Han continued his cross-examination of current CHC board member and
church-goer John Lam.
Chew
again sought to cast doubt on Lam's testimony - including that of Chew
having played a key role in CHC's major investments - by suggesting that
evidence tendered by Lam was "totally false" on a number of occasions.
Chew
and Lam are among the six accused of having "dishonestly
misappropriated" some $24 million of CHC's Building Fund to finance Sun
Ho's music career and then "round-tripping" another $26.6 million to
cover the alleged misappropriation. The others on trial are Ms Ho's
husband, senior pastor and co-founder Kong Hee, deputy senior pastor Tan
Ye Peng, finance manager Sharon Tan and former finance manager and
board member Serina Wee.
Chew,
in a break from the others, quit the church in June last year; he also
discharged his lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, and is now defending
himself.
In
continuing his cross-examination of Lam, who is on the stand this week,
Chew challenged Lam's assertions that Chew had directed several key
investments made by the church - including a $21.5 million investment
into bonds issued by Xtron Productions, which managed Ms Ho's career and
the church's evangelical effort, the Crossover Project.
Chew
pointed out that Lam had testified in court earlier this week that it
was Chew who suggested to Lam that CHC take up the Xtron bonds, and that
it was AMAC - the investment vehicle run by Chew that managed the
church's investments - that made the ultimate investment decision.
"In
your testimony, you said . . . I showed you (the Xtron bonds) were a
good investment because they were principal-protected and the album
sales (of Ms Ho's music albums) were expected to be good, and your
testimony now (is that) you left it to my discretion to decide on
whether to buy Xtron bonds or not. Is that correct?" Chew asked.
"Yes, correct," said Lam.
Chew
then called up a statement made by Lam to the Commercial Affairs
Department (CAD) on June 16, 2010, when Lam was interviewed by an
investigation officer (IO) of the CAD. In that statement, Lam said the
board of City Harvest "was involved in the evaluation of the
investment"; as for the "performance appraisal for the investments, it
would be just a direct meeting with the main board (of CHC) where the
fund manager will present to the board for appraisal".
Chew
said: "Mr Lam, I'm submitting to you that your CAD statement is totally
inconsistent with the testimony that you have given in court over the
past few days.
"Your testimony that it was left to AMAC to decide on purchase of Xtron bonds is totally false," Chew added.
Lam
said he disagreed with Chew; he said that, at the time he was
questioned by the IO, he had no access to emails or other documentation
on these investments and was not totally sure of the facts, nor could he
recall exactly what CHC's arrangement had been. "I had no documents
before me, I was basing (my statement) purely on recollection of my
memory at that time."
"So, your state of mind has changed since then?" Chew asked.
"Because now I've a chance to look at the documents and the emails and I understood what really happened," Lam replied.
The hearing continues with the prosecution's cross-examination of Lam today.
No comments:
Post a Comment