24 September 2014 – DPP cross-examined Sharon (MrsLightnFriends: 25th Sept 2014)

I find it a challenge to report what is happening in the court. The hearings seem to be going around in a circle. (I may write about the second half court’s session, related to advance rental after hearing more evidences.)

Today’s morning questioning is back to the 3 August 2008 Board minutes and the 5 August 2008 (the back dated 27 July 2008) Investment Committee minutes.

I summarized what was argued this morning related to para 4.6 of the board’s minutes.
 

Para 4.6 It was noted that the Investment Committee reviewed and approved that along with the bond agreement with Xtron (total of S$18m, 10 year convertible bonds) CHC have an option to buy Riverwalk at original cost.

Dates	DPP’s position	Sharon’s evidence	John Lam’s evidence
3 Aug 08 – Board meeting	When the board meeting was held, the IC had not yet met to review and approve the Xtron ABSA ($18m bond).	The IC meetng was present in the same meeting together with the board.  The board approved the bond agreement.	John Lam’s evidence on 15 July 2014 the paragraph 4.6 was a mistake. What was recorded in para 4.6 did not happen on 3 Aug 08.
5 Aug 08 –Investment  meeting	This meeting IC then reviewed and approved the Xtron ABSA.	Sharon asserted that the Investment Committee met on 5 Aug with the intention to assess the recoverability of the $13m, including the new Xtron ABSA.

DPP: “I suggest to you that, when we look at the email trial and we see how your falsely backdated investment committee minutes were vetted by John Lam, sent to Serina and then further sent by her to Ye Peng and Eng Han before they were provided to the auditors, these other persons also had the same intention as you, to give the auditors the impression that the church had already assessed the bonds to be a good investment even before the auditors raised queries. Do you agree or disagree?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I disagree.”

Who were in control of how much and when to draw down on the Xtron and Firna bonds?

Sharon shifts position in answering to the DPP questions.
 

1. Yesterday’s evidence was Kong Hee, Ye Peng and Serina are the ones deciding when to draw down on the Xtron bonds because they know when money was needed for the Crossover.
 

2. Today’s evidence was the Crossover team decides when drawdowns have to be made, according to the funding needs of the Crossover, and after they have made the decision the Xtron and Firna directors are asked to sign, to approve the drawdown.

When being pressed further questions by DPP she said Serina told her that the Xtron and the Firna directors are actually the ones who approve each drawdown of the bonds.

DPP: “Ms Tan, from the emails and the BlackBerry messages that you have been shown, including (listed the email exhibits and Blackberry exhibits number) that the people who were in control of how much and when to draw down on the Xtron and Firna bonds were the people in charge of the Crossover Project, namely Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and Serina?”

Sharon asserted that the decisions to use the bond proceeds for the Crossover were independent decisions of the Xtron and Firna directors.

The DPP proved otherwise by retrieving the evidences from all the three Xtron directors.
 

All the three Xtron directors gave evidence in this trail that they were not in control of the drawdown on the bonds.

On 21 May 2013, Mr Koh Siow Ngea said “the church” made the decision to drawdown of the Xtron ABSA.

On 26 Aug 2013, Mr Choong Kar Weng said once the overall budget has been approved he leave it to Serina.
 

On 3 Sep 2013, Mr Wahju said the drawdown of the Xtron bonds, he leave it to Choong Kar Weng.

DPP: “Ms Tan, I put it to you that what the evidence I have taken you through show, clearly, is that the decisions as to how and when the bond proceeds were to be drawn down and used was left not to the independent decisions of the Xtron and Firna directors but were instead decided by the Crossover team of Serina, Ye Peng, Kong Hee and Eng Han. You can agree or disagree, and explain why you do so.”

Sharon disagreed and explained that her knowledge came from Serina.

Does AMAC need the approval of the board to invest in Firna bonds?

DPP: “Can AMAC go ahead to invest the church’s monies in Firna bonds without the board’s approval?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, technically, yes, but like what I said, AMAC has remained accountable when it comes to Xtron and Firna bonds, and there were approvals given.”

DPP: “What do you mean by “technically” AMAC has discretion to invest the church’s monies in Firna without the board’s approval?”

Sharon: “Based on the contract that CHC has with AMAC, that AMAC has the full discretion to invest, your Honour.”

DPP: “But what does the board require? What is the board’s understanding? Is AMAC permitted to go and invest $24.5m of the church’s monies in Firna bonds (Wahju) without the board giving it’s approval?”

Sharon: “Your Honour, I can’t speak for the board but this was how it has been when I worked with the board, your Honour.”

DPP: “Can I put it to you, Ms Tan, that your evidence in the last few minutes has been an example of disingenuous shifting of position, and it is because you are trying to cover up the fact that you are lying when you say that the board was told about, discussed and approved the Firna bonds in August or September.”

DPP: “Incidentally, Ms Tan, you claim that, actually, Mr Chew Eng Han has discretion to invest in Firna bonds without board approval. But when Mr Chew cross-examined you and he put it to you that he only has discretion to invest the remaining balance of monies in the Deutsche bank account that is not set aside for Xtron and Firna bonds, you agreed with him. So, again, that is an example of how you shift position in your evidence, depending on what position you think is favourable to you at the time. Correct?”

Sharon disagreed.