The money Xtron Productions raised from issuing bonds could be used for Ms Ho’s career, also known as the Crossover Project. Chew had also said the revenue to redeem the bonds would come from the sale of her album, testified former church board member John Lam Leng Hung.
This was around June 2007, a few months after the church’s board was told more funds would be needed for Ms Ho to attempt to break into the United States market.
Lam said his impression at the time was that the coming album would be very successful, given her success in the Mandarin market and the fact that Ms Ho’s husband, church co-founder Kong Hee, was driving the project.
Lam faces three charges of criminal breach of trust relating to S$24 million of church-building funds allegedly funnelled into sham bond investments in companies, including Xtron.
The case involves another S$26.6 million that was alleged misappropriated to cover up the initial sum.
Chew, who faces 10 charges, has since left the church and will take the stand at a later date.
Lam’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, sought to show that his client was not involved in planning Ms Ho’s foray into the US or the drafting of the bond agreement with Xtron.
“He seems to pop up here and there. Whenever there’s a miserable accounting issue, he’s asked because he’s an accountant. But the prosecution’s case is that Mr John Lam was part of a plan, an unholy design to dishonestly misuse church funds to personally benefit Ms Ho,” said Mr Tan.
On the stand, Lam also said many in the church had been “traumatised” by allegations made in 2003 by a church member, Mr Roland Poon, that church funds were being misused for Ms Ho’s career.
Realising the public was sensitive to any association between her albums and the church, the church leaders tried to distance the church from the Crossover Project and had Xtron manage her career. But the church board was kept informed about these links, Lam said.
Earlier in the day, Mr Tan and lead prosecutor Mavis Chionh had tussled over the contents and admission of Lam’s conditioned statement. The defence lawyer argued that it would substantially speed up the trial — with 46 days concluded and possibly 59 days to go — and help contain “astronomical” legal costs. But Ms Chionh objected to a large part of Lam’s conditioned statement, leading to the omission of the disputed segment from Mr Tan’s examination of his client.
The trial continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment