23 September 2014 – DPP’s cross-examination of Sharon
Today, in the morning, Sharon Tan was
questioned about her evidence in court related to Xtron. In the
afternoon she was questioned about her “state of mind” when she recorded
the minutes, what she communicated to the auditor and the sources of
funds for the Crossover Project.
How profitable Xtron was?
It was revealed in an email between the auditors Sharon and Serina,
dated 1 August 2008, that Xtron has no good track record to-date making
huge losses for the past few years,
2005: group loss of $1.35m and 2006: group loss of $1.64m.
Is Xtron and CHC related?
The DPP directed Sharon to open a minutes of an audit meeting that
Sharon, Bao Ting, Pastor Tan and John Lam attended with Mr Sim.
In the meeting, Mr Sim asked: “In future, is CHC and Xtron related? Significance influence?”
John Lam’s answer to Mr Sim was: “Common
interest. Work together because of common objective. At the end of it,
we will want to maintain it with arm length view, to maintain long term
relationship. On different management funding, in negotiation, we
clearly make sure we got favourable terms.”
In Sharon evidence-in-chief, she also
told the court that Xtron is an independent company with commercially
viable business. Xtron has directors who are business people, credible
and will be able to enter into any negotiations needed with other
government agencies or organisations.
The DPP pointed out that in August 2008
EGM, Pastor Kong presented to the Executive members about how Xtron must
have a track record that is viable and a profitable company.
The DPP produced a new evidence of email
from Sharon to Serina on 23 November 2006. There is no text in the
email except for an Excel attachment that contains the gross salaries of
quite a large number of individuals for the year 2005 and 2006.
The DPP established the facts that the
accountant of the church prepared a spreadsheet that compiled
information about not just the salaries of the church staff but also the
salaries of the employees of Xtron and Attributes.
The DPP opened another email from Sharon
to Kong Hee on 2 July 2008. This email is related to the July 0.5 month
bonus. Sharon needed to seek Kong’s final confirmation before she could
make the announcement to all the staff.
When the DPP queried her about whether
“all the staff” refers to the staff of those seven organizations,
including Xtron listed in the email. Sharon said she would only be
referring to the announcement for the CHC staff and she gave her long
explanation to the judge.
The DPP produced another new evidence of
email from Sharon to Serina Wee in July 2009. In this email Angie Koh,
Kenny Low and Robin Thor are in the loop.
“Dear all, we are currently reviewing all the staff’s salaries.
PLEASE email me by Tuesday 12 noon the salaries with component and scale breakdown of each staff.”
DPP asked: “Why was Meng How, the HR
director of CHC reviewing the staff salaries of staff from Xtron and
these other organisations?”
Sharon: “I can’t remember what this review of staff salary is about… there should be another email for me to explain better.”
DPP: “I had suggested to you that from
these emails that you sent, it is clear that the church exercised a
substantial degree of control and influence over Xtron’s payroll and
it’s staff salaries. Agree or disagree? If you wish to explain, you can
do so.”
Sharon disagreed with no explanation.
The DPP opened another email from Sharon
to Pastor Kong on 11 January 2010. In this email, Sharon told Kong that
she had been asked by Meng How to send him the overall organisation’s
salary budget and percentage for his review.
DPP asked: “What is this overall organisation that you refer to?”
Sharon: “Your Honour, I was referring to CHC and the other organisations that work closely with CHC.”
Sharon explained in court that what she
and Mr Kong were doing was scenario planning for a cataclysmic scenario,
where the church would need to absorb all the staff of all the
organisations back into the church (as stated below).
The percentage of salary/net income is 33.05%, but Kong wanted the salary not more than 32.7%.
The organisations involved in this exercises are as followed:
- CHC
- CHCSA
- Xtron
- City Colleage
- O School
- Little Big
- Citycare
- APL
- Advante
- BBG
DPP: “I
put it to you, Ms Tan, that you are lying when you claim that your
proposals in your emails to Mr Kong for reducing the percentage figure
were directed at City Harvest only.”
Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”
DPP: “I
put it to you that what this email shows is, firstly, that you and Mr
Kong viewed these other organisations, including Xtron, as part of one
overall whole entity, and that is why you have included them in this
exercise. Secondly, what this email also shows is that Kong Hee
exercised a certain degree of control and influence over the salary
costs of these other entities, and that’s why he was able to tell you to
get the total figure below a certain amount. You can agree or disagree,
and then we will move on.”
Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”
Crossover budget Projection and Xtron bonds drawndown
The DPP opened an email from Serina to Sharon and Eng Han on 14 February 2008.
DPP: “…this drawdown schedule will be
finalized when Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng finish working on the
projections for the Sun Ho’s album. Yes?”
Sharon: “Your Honour, I’m never involved in the projections for the Crossover Project.”
DPP: “I’m not asking you about the
projections and your involvement in the projections. I’m asking you to
confirm that, on the basis of this email, which you received from
Serina, you would have understood that the drawdown schedule for the
Xtron bonds would be finalized when Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng finished
working on the album projections. Yes?”
Sharon: “Your Honour, I wanted to
explain that I was never involved in the process of this whole Crossover
project. But based on what Pastor Kong had mentioned, that he would
have gone through the projections with Wahju.”
<… questions and answers …>
DDP: “I
put it to you, Ms Tan, that you are being untruthful in your answer and
trying to avoid what is clearly stated in the email itself.”
Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree,
because beyond this email there might be other conversations that I
would understand how the process would be.”
<… questions and answers …>
DPP: “I
put it to you, Ms Tan, that what this email shows is that the drawndown
on the Xtron bonds was controlled by Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng, and
depended on the album launch. And you are aware of this from the email
itself. The only reason why you are pretending not to understand what
the email says is because you are now trying to dissociate yourself with
what it shows.”
The DPP opened another email from
Serina to Sharon and copied to Tan Ye Peng on 29 June 2008. Before
that, Sharon has asked Serina to give her the projection for the Xtron
bonds drawndown.
Serina reply to her is she has given
what she has “But let me discuss with Pst Tan as we are in the midst of
finalizing the album budget then I can have a better picture of when we
need to drawn down.”
<… questions and answers …>
DPP: “I
put it to you, Ms Tan, that far from the process being, as you claimed
opaque to you, it is clear from the email itself that you would have
understood that the drawdown on the Xtron bonds was dependent on the
album budget which was being controlled by Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and
Serina. And that, therefore Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and Serina were
effectively controlling the drawdown schedule. You can agree or
disagree.”
Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”
The DPP opened another email, where
Sharon and Serina were asked by Ye Peng for her views on a proposal to
rent the Riverwalk premises to the Singapore Turf Club.
<… questions and answers …>
DPP questioned Sharon: “If Xtron and
CHC were two separate and independent entities transacting at arm’s
length, you would not have regarded income Xtron earns from the church
as “earning from ourselves”. Agree or disagree?”
Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree
because the transaction would still be at arm’s length. Sorry your
Honour, I don’t understand the “earning from ourselves’ would apply to
whether we are independent entity or transactions.”
<… questions and answers …>
DPP: “I
suggest to you that the series of numerous emails we have seen this
morning show that you know that Xtron was not independent of the church
and you were aware that Xtron was viewed by yourself and your co-accused
as being part of a whole entity. You can agree or disagree.”
Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”
No comments:
Post a Comment