29 April 2015 – Serina cross-examined by Defence Counsel (MrsLightnFriends: 29 April 2015)

Serina cross-examined by Kong Hee’s Counsel

Kong’s counsel didn’t have questions for Serina Wee.
保持沉默是以守为攻的上策吗?

Serina cross-examined by Sharon’s Counsel

Sharon’s perspective or recollection of events differs from Serina

Controversy 1
This is in relation to the letter from AMAC to Deutsche Bank to effect the drawdown of a $5million tranche of the first Bond Subscription Agreement (BSA).

The drawdown was signed by Aries Zulkarnain [Board member], Derek Dunn [Executive pastor of the church] and Ms Sharon Tan.

Sharon’s recollection is the instruction to sign the document was from Serina. But Serina says she don’t have this recollection.

Sharon’s EIC: Your Honour, during that time Serina Wee was still personally handling this investment so I recall that she came to me to tell me that this had been approved by the board and as well as during the July 2007 EGM. So I would need to sign this drawdown by Xtron.   I would sign based on what she had told me.

Sharon also recalled that Aries and Derek signed the drawndown before her.

The recollection from Serina (Sharon Tan cross-examined by SC Maniam)
SC Maniam: I know you have said you think Serina was the one who obtained the signatories, including yours, is it possible that Mr Chew Eng Han was the one who got your signature instead?

Sharon: Your Honour, as far as I can recall, it was Serina that I got the instruction from unless there are any documents that can jog my memory.

SC Maniam: Ms Tan I’m suggesting that to you simply because Serina’s recollection is that it may have been Eng Han instead.

Counsel Paul: Ms Tan clearly recalls that you passed a document to her and that the two other gentlemen’s signatures [Aries and Derek] were already there when you did. Could that have been possible?

Serina: Your Honour, I don’t have a recollection as per what Sharon remembers, because, based on my emails, I forwarded the draft of the letter to Deutsche Bank. I forwarded that draft to Eng Han to prepare, and what happened after that I do not remember. But I think it might be possible that I might have been the one to let Sharon sign the document as well.

Controversy 2
Sharon recalled it was Serina who told her that the board had approved the first BSA. But Serina says she don’t have this recollection.

Counsel Paul: On a slightly different angle, do you recall ever telling Sharon that the first BSA had been approved by the board?

Serina: Your Honour, I also don’t have that specific recollection but it might have been possible. And if I had told her that the board had approved it. I wouldn’t have meant it in the sense of that specific approval was given, because that wasn’t my understanding that it was required, but I might have meant it that the board was aware of the BSA.

Controversy 3
This is in relation to the minutes of the investment committed meeting dated 29 July 08 [A-113] and the email exchanges between Serina, Eng Han and Sharon Tan.[E-253]

Sharon’s position is she had called Serina and with the answer from Serina, she inferred that she had to change the minutes date. But Serina cannot remember having this conversation with Sharon.

E-253
In this email Sharon wrote to Serina and Eng Han, and Serina replied to Sharon in blue. See my previous blog on Sharon’s evidence.

The recollection from Serina  (Sharon Tan cross-examined by SC Maniam)
SC Maniam: Ms Tan your evidence is that you spoke to Serina after seeing her reply and you asked her if Siow Ngea could be appointed later. Do you recall that?

Sharon: Yes, your Honour.

SC Maniam: My instructions from Serina are that she does not recall having such a conversation with you. She doesn’t think it took place, because she already told you Siow Ngea had been appointed officially on 29 July 2008.

Counsel Paul: Can I assume this is still your position that you cannot remember having this conversation with Sharon?

Serina: Yes, your Honour, that’s still my position.

Counsel Paul: Ms Wee, after seven year, memories fade, people recall different things; my client's recollection is that she called you and she spoke with you on this, and she says her memory is quite clear. One more time: your position is still that you cannot recall this conversation?

Serina: Yes, your Honour, I cannot recall this conversation.

Controversy 4
This is in relation to E-69 and Serina’s EIC on April 27. Sharon’s position is different from Serina’s evidence.

E-69 dated 25 September 2009
The subject is “Net Present Value”. This is an email from Sharon to Serina and Eng Han.

Sharon wrote:

Dear Eng Han and Serina,

Pastor Tan wants us to settle this within the next 1 week.   That means the following must be done:
1. Net Present Value
2. Contract
3. Whole XPL, Firna and CHC transaction.

Serina explained that point 3 is the plan for the redemption of the bonds. The plan involves the use of advance rental to redeem both the Xtron and Firna bonds. She had gotten the understanding from the conversation she had with Sharon at the period between 22 to 23 September 09.

Serina’s EIC on 27 April 2015
Serina: Your Honour, Sharon explained about Pac Rad, Pacific Radiance, will give the funds to Firna to enable them to redeem the bonds and also that the church will be giving advance rentals to Xtron. Xtron will offset the S21.5million ABSA with the advance rentals, and then after that, Xtron would purchase bonds in Firna.
 
SC Maniam: Did Sharon say anything about what Firna would use the bond proceeds for after Xtron purchased bonds in Firna?
 
Serina: Your Honour, I can’t remember if she said specifically, but my understanding, based on the initial plans in E-502, was that Firna will continue to support the Crossover.

Counsel Paul: My client’s position [refers to Sharon], Ms Wee is that she would not be in a position to say anything about the funding or support of the Crossover Project because she was not part of the Crossover team, and she did not know the details of how the Crossover Project was funded through Firna. Is that something you can agree with?

Serina: Your Honour, I think Sharon would be familiar that Firna is involved in the crossover and Wahju is involved in funding of the Crossover, but I can agree that she may not be familiar in the sense of telling me this portion, because I also stated that I cannot remember specifically if she told this to me.

Serina’s EIC inconsistent with Sharon’s evidence

City Harvest Church’s style of recording minutes
The prosecution’s case is that the official board minutes of meetings reflect a false version of what happened at board meeting.

Sharon’s EIC said that it was Serina’s practice when she first started attending the meetings. Sharon says, “… the finalized minutes did not reflect everything that was discussed, but only key points.” and Serina agreed with her.

Counsel Paul: Would this be an accurate way of describing how CHC’s minutes were generally done up during your time?

Serina: Yes, your Honour. This is based on what I learned from Foong Ming, who prepared minutes before me.

Counsel Paul: You just told us this is a practice you inherited from Ms Wong Foong Ming?

Serina: Yes. [The evidence adduced by counsel in court on 16 April 2015]

Serina said this practice of only minuting key points was not something she or Sharon came up with.

Counsel Paul: In fact, it would be fair to say that this had been the practice of how CHC minutes were taken for many years before Ms Sharon Tan took over the minute taking?

Serina: Yes

Counsel Paul Seah read Pastor Tan’s evidence of 30 Mar 2015.

DPP: Can you clarify something you said just now? You told us that what is told to the board might not always appear in the board minutes of meeting. If we understand you correctly, you are saying that we cannot trust the board minutes of meeting because they don’t tell us the whole truth about what happens at board meetings. Is that your position?

TYP: Your Honour, my explanation is that the board minutes does not record everything that is discussed. it’s not that the board was not told the truth in board meetings.

DPP: What you are saying is that the board minutes don’t necessarily reflect the accurate and full picture of what happens at board meetings?

TYP: Your Honour, the board minutes may not reflect everything that is discussed.

DPP: So some things might be left out of the board minutes of meeting?

TYP: Your Honour, the board minutes were recorded in a way that reflects what was eventually happened. And, your Honour with the benefit of hindsight, that maybe we should have typed the board minutes verbatim, and a lot of this procedures and processes are already done in the church today. But at the point in time when we were board members, we didn’t type it down verbatim, the discussions that were going on, and eventually, what was captured in the board minutes was eventually what happened.

DPP: What does that mean, “the board minutes were recorded in a way that reflects what eventually happened”?

TYP: Your Honour, what I meant I shouldn’t use the word ‘decided’, but may be discussed in the board meeting about doing A and then eventually we end up doing B, so what was minuted would be B instead of the discussion that we had earlier on, which was A.

DPP: So if the board discussed A at the meeting but eventually B was what happened, the board meetings would not reflect A and would only reflect B?

TYP: Your Honour, then A is usually reflected in the handwritten notes, was what was discussed, but B eventually ended up in the typed-out notes of the meeting.

Counsel Paul: Do you agree with that?

Serina: Your Honour, I do agree that sometimes there were this kind of situation where there was a further discussion, and then the minutes were updated, but when the board members resigned the minutes again, they were giving their approval. It’s a form of ratification to the minutes being taken that way.

Court evidence CH-3 and 9 April meeting with Mr. Sim
This is in relation to the meeting with Mr Sim Guan Seng [Prosecution’s witness] on 9 April meeting. Serina and Eng Han were not at the meeting.  John Lam, Pastor Tan and Sharon and Ms Lai Baoting [Prosecution’s witness] were at the meeting with Mr Sim. In the course of these proceeding, Mr Sim’s evidence has become a matter of some controversy, particularly whether he had given the church the impression that he wanted the bonds off the church’s books.

Sharon’s position is that, at that meeting with Mr Sim he wanted the xtron bonds off the books.

In Serina’s EIC, she said that Sharon updated her about the meeting and told her that Mr Sim did not like the bonds because he found the bonds and the valuation process complicates the audit. Serina also said that Sharon told her that Mr Sim hopes to not see the bonds on the church’s books by the next financial year.

Counsel Paul: If I recall correctly, what you told the court in your evidence was that later on you thought the church also wanted to clear the Firna bonds because they would attract the valuation issues that disturbed Mr Sim?

Serina: That’s correct.

Counsel Paul: As far as you can remember, when did Sharon update you on what Mr Sim said during this meeting?

Serina: Your Honour, my impression is that it’s quite close to the meeting itself.

Counsel Paul: Thank you. Did anyone else you spoke to reinforce what Sharon said?

Serina: Your Honour, I can’t recall speaking to anyone else about this.

Counsel Paul: Do you think that Sharon relating what has happened in this meeting would have any reason to lie to you about this, that the impression she got was that Mr Sim wanted the Xtron bonds off the books?

Serina: Your Honour, Sharon has no reason to lie about this.

Counsel Paul: As far as you know, is this something that your co-accused Pastor Tan, Mr Chew Eng Han and Ms Tan really believed, that Mr Sim preferred the bonds off the books?

Serina: Yes, your Honour, this would be something they really believed.

Counsel Paul: Let me come right out and ask you this question: was there a conspiracy between the four of you, Mr Chew, Pastor Tan, Sharon and yourself, to clear the bonds and falsify the church accounts because you were afraid that the auditors would find out that these bonds were sham bonds?

Serina: Your Honour, there is no conspiracy. The auditors already know what the bonds are used for. They know about the bonds since the first BSA. So there’s no conspiracy to prevent them from finding out anything.

Court evidence CH-50b [Sharon’s handwritten notes for a board meeting of CHC on 12 September 2009 and E-683
There is a controversy over Sharon’s handwritten notes, whether or not her notes accurately reflects what was told to the board and the bond redemption plan.

Sharon’s position is her notes accurately set out what was told to the board.

Serina was not at this board meeting but she had a meeting with Sharon on 29 September 09.

Let’s see the evidence adduced by the counsel.

The board meeting is on 12 September 2009.

Counsel directed Serina to open another evidence E-683. The bottom on the email is from Sharon to Pastor Tan and copied to Derek Dunn.

Sharon reported what happened in the audit committee meeting that the church had with Mr Sim and his staff on 22 September 09. This email is on 23 September 09 and audit committee meeting was the day before, on 22 September 09.

E-683 dated 23 September 2009
At the point 2 of this email Sharon was telling Pastor Tan and Pastor Derek Dunn that
2) Redemption of bonds
John mentioned about XPL’s intention of redeeming the bonds and our arrangement of giving advance rental. He gave a comment that he would not interfere with how our church works and will just ensure that the accounting entries are done properly! Wow… I was quite shocked by his response! [There is a smiley face]

Please keep board meeting date 12 September 2009 and the audit committee meeting with Mr Sim date on 22 September 2009 in mind.

Counsel Paul went on to read Serina’s EIC of 28 April 2015.

SC Maniam: 2 October 2009 would correspond with the first payment into the SOF in connection with the redemption plan. If you can keep that date in mind, 2 October 2009 what did you think the church board knew about the redemption plan before it was implemented?

Serina: Your Honour, on the 29 September 2009 meeting, when Eng Han drew the whole diagram of the redemption plan, I remember that I asked Sharon if the board knows about it and Sharon said the board is aware. And I also asked her, “Are the auditors okay with this ARLA offsetting the bonds, because it’s a direct account entry?” And she said that the auditors are aware.

SC Maniam: Look at the chart 3D-5, which we have been looking at for reference. Can you tell me, for the Xtron audit of FY2008, what does the chart show as the start date for the aduit?
 

Serina: 7 September 2009 and the audit partner for the audit is Mr Sim.

Counsel Paul: If I understand your evidence correctly, you are saying that Ms Tan had told you on 29 September 2009, one, the church board was aware of the redemption plan, and, two, the auditors were aware that ARLA would be used to offset the Xtron bonds.

Serina: Yes, that’s correct.

Counsel Paul: This would be consistent with what we have seen in CH-50b and E-683?

Serina: Yes, it would be consistent.

Counsel Paul: Thank you. Did you think that Sharon was lying to you about the board being aware and the auditors being aware of the set-off?

Serina: No, your Honour, she has no reason to lie to me.

Is there a criminal conspiracy between Serina and the co-accused?
In Serina’s EIC of 28 April 2015, she referred to an email that she sent to Sharon and Eng Han. In that email, she said that she would be away for holiday and Angie Koh [prosecution’s witness] would help her to liaise with Wahju side.
 

Counsel Paul: It seems to me, at least from the email, that you had no issue with involving Angie Koh in the redemption exercise while you were away?

Serina: Yes, your Honour, I had no issues with that.

Counsel Paul: To do this, to get her involved, you would, of course, have to share correct me if I am wrong the details and the process of redemption plan and the timelines with her?

Serina: Correct. I did share with Angie.

Counsel Paul: In fact, we have seen it in a few documents. I don’t need to bring you there. But you had no issue with her knowing the details and the process?

Serina: Yes, there’s no issue Angie knowing.

Counsel Paul: You had no fear of her raising alarm bells because what you were doing was wrong?

Serina: No, your Honour. I did not think that anything was wrong.

Counsel Paul: So you were actually quite happy to go off on a holiday and leave the administration of the redemption of the bonds to Angie Koh?

Serina: Yes

Counsel Paul: From what my client tells me that you are a careful and conscientious person and if this was a criminal conspiracy you would not want to go away but take care of every detail. Is that a correct characterization of your personality?

Serina: Your Honour, firstly, I won’t be involved in a criminal conspiracy, but I am a very careful person.

Counsel Paul: When you said that Angie was going to liaise with Wahju while you were away, did either Sharon or Eng Han voice any issues?

Serina: No, your Honour. They did not say that there were any issues.

Counsel Paul: Did either of them say, “We’d better keep this process a secret between ourselves and not involve an outsider”?

Serina: No

Counsel Paul: Last questions, as far as you know, from your interactions with Sharon and Eng Han, did either of them show any signs that they thought that this whole process, the details of the redemption, was wrong or illegal?

Serina: No, your Honour. They did not show any signs that they thought anything was wrong. It’s just a normal transaction.

Counsel Paul: Thank you very much. Ms Wee, that’s all the questions I have for you.