CHC Board and EMs know about church fund being used in the Crossover? (MrsLightnFriends: 10 Feb 2015)

CHC Board and Executive Members know about church fund being used in the Crossover?

During cross-examination, DPP rejected the suggestion that the Crossover project needs to be discreet. To support his point, DPP Ong referred to a script discussed during CHC Annual General Meeting in 2002.
On another occasion the same exhibit was referred to support DPP suggested that Chew knew that the Building Fund was a restricted fund.
Recap on 2 February 2015.
(CH-95) Annual General Meeting script in 2002. 

Kong Hee said:
“The deferred expenditure.. now this is what we spent. Now $231,000, what did we spend on, we spent on this Pastor Sun’s MTV project because we want to use it a tool for evangelism, but this is not just money spent and we won’t recoup because we’re going to recoup it back in a few months time…Now, the cost of the MTV is almost a quarter million dollars, we need to sell 47,000 copies to break even. As of now, 4 weeks later, we actually, today is what.. the 28th of last month was the eve of Easter Good Friday, already we sold 30,000 copies. Now and we haven’t even come to Singapore yet, yes, Amen.”

DPP: …, Kong Hee is actually referring the EMs to a part of CHC of CHC’s FY2001 financial statements and he explains that CHC had spent $231,000 on Sun Ho’s MTV project… so it would appear that, at least in 2002, at the AGM, Kong Hee was openly telling the EMs that church funds had been used to finance Sun Ho’s music career at this stage and told them that it was for evangelism. Do you recall this?

Chew: I can only recall, your Honour, from the script right now.
….
DPP: Now, of course, this kind of transparency and openness about the use of church funds, that changed subsequently, and we’ll be going into that.
Chew: Yes
… Chew gave explanation and the Roland Poon incident….

DPP: So in 2003, when Roland Poon made his allegations, something that in 2002 had no need to be hidden, was perfectly okay to tell the AGM, suddenly became this serious allegation that had to be refuted? Isn’t that correct?

Chew: Yes
DPP: Never mind what the truth was actually was; what was important was that the correct impression was created to protect the church from criticism?
Chew: Yah, I got to qualify this, your Honour, that when the prosecutor says “suddenly became this serious allegation that had to be refuted”, I think it has to be put to me who was this serious to.  To me or to Kong Hee?
…..

DPP referred to a minutes of a CHC board meeting dated 5 May 2002 but was amended in March 2003.

The board minutes record that the CHC board approved that the expenditure of $231,000 on the MTV project would be expensed off in Attributes instead.

In 2003, Kong Hee announced to the EMs that Attributes spent the money donated by Wahju and “never a dollar was used from the church account”.

……

Chew: My first discovery, your Honour, was that the monies that Kong Hee told me that Wahju had given to sponsor the Crossover had already mistakenly gone into Building Fund.  That was my first impression.  And, therefore, to correct that wrong capturing of the transactions, that it had rightfully to be reversed out of Building Fund, and then put to the place where Wahju wanted it to be, which was the Crossover.

Recap on 3 February 2015.
Referred to the same 2002 AGM script that Kong Hee had said.

DPP: Were the donors to the Building Fund told that their donations, besides going towards the building project, might also be used to finance the Crossover Project directly?

Chew: No, your Honour. There was one occasion, and that was in 2002, and that’s in CH-95 (Annual General Meeting in 2002), that was brought up by the prosecution.

DPP: Mr Chew, that wasn’t Building Fund money that was being used, was it?

Chew: In 2002, I’m not sure. Probably not.
……

DPP: Yes, the $231,000 in 2002 the church was told this money had been spent, all right? And you’ve just said you don’t think it was Building Fund money. All right? Then we come to 2003. That $231,000 gets shifted to Attributes, and then the merry-go-round was put in place, to have Wahju’s money backed out of the Building Fund and then used to cover the $231,000. Correct?

Chew: That may not have been what happened because, your Honour, in CH-95 (Annual General Meeting in 2002), in the next few lines after the lines that the prosecution showed to me, Kong Hee actually told the congregation that these are not monies that will be spent and not recouped. In other words he’s saying it’s not going to be expended out. And he went on to say that just in the space of four weeks Sun Ho had already sold 30,000 copies of the album and they were going for a break-even target of 47,000, and therefore the monies would come back within months. So from what I understand at CH-95(Annual General Meeting in 2002), he was telling the congregation, “Don’t worry, this money won’t be expensed off. It’s a short-term loan from the church to the Crossover, and the monies will be recouped. So I’m not sure if in the end the merry-go-round was done to cover this $231k. So now I’m referring to this incident as one of the cases where church funds was directly invested into the album, be it General Fund or Building Fund.

Recap on 4 February 2015.
Referred to the same 2002 AGM script that Kong Hee had said.

DPP: If you look at the investment agreement, the appointment of AMAC in the investment policy. If you need to look at it, you can, but, really, these are silent on anything to do with investments within a mission component. There’s no mention of that. It is purely regarding investments without any distinction. Correct?

Chew: Yes, your Honour, and why do I say there’s precedence is because in prior years, in 2002/2003, when the church had already put money into the Crossover, it was a board decision. It was Kong Hee and the board that decided.

DPP: But, Mr Chew, if you’re talking about 2002/2003, for example the $231,000 that we’ve heard of, that was not framed as investments, whether into the Crossover Project or anything else. They were expenses.

Chew: I beg to differ, your Honour. If we can go to CH-95, right now I can show that it was meant to be an investment. On page 52. If your Honour will allow it.

DPP: Carry on, Mr Chew.

Chew: I think it’s part 1, on page 52. ….This is Kong Hee addressing the AGM. It says: “The deferred expenditure… now this is what we spent. Now $231,000, what did we spend on, we spent on this Pastor Sun’s MTV project because we want to use it as a tool for evangelism, but this is not just monies spent and we won’t recoup because we’re going to recoup it back in a few months’ time.” This is an investment, your Honour: “Now, the cost of the MTV is almost a quarter million dollars, we need to sell 47,000 copies to break even. As of now, 4 weeks later, we actually, today is what the 28^th of last month was the eve of Easter Good Friday, already we sold 30,000 copies. Now and we haven’t even come to Singapore yet, yes, Amen.”

DPP: Mr Chew, I think I shall have to correct you there. If you go back to the beginning of the paragraphs that you’ve just been referring to, what Kong Hee says is: ‘The deferred expenditure, G [he is referring to the line item], now this is what we spent.” He doesn’t say “the investment that you see listed in the accounts”, he doesn’t say “this is what we invested”. Correct?

Chew: Can I take on from here?

DPP: No, correct or not?

Chew: Of course, your Honour. He didn’t use the word “investment” but … it doesn’t mean it is not an investment.

DPP: Because this $231,000 had been recorded and accounted for as expenses. Correct?

SC Maniam who is representing Serina Wee stood up.

Maniam: Your Honour, I object to that question. Mr Foong has given a detailed explanation of the correct accounting treatment and, if my learned friend is going to say that deferred expenditure is expenses, then we’ll have to redo all of the transcript, your Honour. Because deferred expenditure is not expenses from an accounting perspective. I had taken Mr Foong through this at length.

[Mrs Light’s comment: Only the Board and EMs who attended 2002 and 2003 meeting will know better.]