SINGAPORE: On the penultimate day of what is set to be a
140-day trial, the prosecution sought to rebuff the closing arguments of
six church leaders delivered last Thursday, calling into question each
accused’s credibility by highlighting “the fundamental flaws” in each of
their cases.
City Harvest Church (CHC) founder Kong Hee and five others are on trial for allegedly misusing S$24 million of church funds to finance the Crossover Project, the church's way of evangelising people through the secular music career of Sun Ho, who is Kong’s wife.
Another S$26.6 million was used to cover up the amount, allegedly through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, which are owned by CHC supporters.
In court on Monday (Sep 14), Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh said that it is a fallacy to feel that a crime committed to further what the perpetrator believes to be a good cause - is not a crime.
KONG A “WELL-PRACTISED LIAR”
DPP Chionh called Kong a “well-practised liar” and criticised him for not being able to “maintain a consistent position on critical factual issues”. Instead, DPP Chionh said, Kong sought to “portray his leadership role in managing CHC as being hands-off, indirect” and when faced with damning evidence, “insulate(d) himself” by attributing his approval for the sham transactions to information given to him by “professionals”.
This “flies in the face of all the evidence” which shows Kong’s “indisputable role” in the Crossover Project, and his being a “meticulous and details-oriented leader … whose express approval was needed before the bonds could go ahead.”
LAM WAS THE "INSIDE MAN"
Each of the accused had a specific role in the conspiracy, “based on their respective skills, experience and leadership positions in the church and the Crossover Project”, DPP Chionh told the court, adding that John Lam, former CHC board member, had a “special role” that none of his co-accused could have fulfilled. The Prosecution also called Lam the “inside man” in CHC’s governance and oversight bodies, who prevented the sham investment bonds from being found out.
TAN “DEEPLY CYNICAL AND SELF-SERVING”
The prosecution called the defence of the third co-accused, CHC finance manager Sharon Tan, “deeply cynical and self-serving”. Her evidence demonstrates her “full participation” in the “planning, execution and subsequent cover-up” of the conspiracy, said DPP Chionh. But she portrayed herself as “a hard-working but naïve church employee” roped in to help with the sham, “in blissful ignorance of any wrongdoing” that her co-accused might have intended.
The prosecution accused Tan of attempting to minimise her involvement in the offences, citing her statement blaming co-accused Chew Eng Han, auditors, lawyers and the church board for her actions.
Tan had previously admitted to falsifying the church board’s minutes of meeting “to create the appearance that the (sham transactions) had been approved" by the board. Tan’s lawyer, Paul Seah, had put this down to “a mere failure of corporate governance” and the inexperience of Tan and the church’s management.
DPP Chionh responded by telling the court that it is “utterly absurd”, considering the sophistication and scale of the church’s operations, including “multi-million dollar financial transactions that (Tan) and her co-accused were involved in.”
“CHC was not some struggling new voluntary outfit run by bumbling amateurs with no experience of the financial world”, DPP Chionh said.
CHEW "INCOHERENT AND LACKS CREDIBILITY"
Chew Eng Han, a former CHC fund manager, argued that the sham investments into Xtron and Firna were actually investments into Ms Ho’s music career, ironically exposing that the bonds were not investments at all. However, he went on to take “multiple positions that are irreconcilable”, saying that the bonds were indeed genuine investments in Xtron and Firna.
DPP Chionh told the court that this shows the “incoherence and the lack of credibility” of Chew’s defence.
TAN’S ROLE IN SHAM INVESTMENT “INDISPENSABLE”
The prosector then went on to criticise Tan Ye Peng’s defence, calling it an attempt to “cast responsibility for any and all” incriminating acts on co-accused Kong and Chew. However, throughout the course of the lengthy trial, the prosecution said that “the evidence … is that (Tan) played an indispensable … role in relation to the sham investment” and noted that Tan’s authority was second only to Kong’s in the management of the Crossover Project.
WEE "THE MOST INEXTRICABLY INVOLVED”
Serina Wee, who DPP Chionh called “the most inextricably involved” in the conspiracy because of her role as the Crossover administrator, had to keep track of the accounts and budgeting for Ms Ho’s music career, which included “monitoring the movement … and planning and monitoring the progress” of the sham transactions.
In closing, DPP Chionh also examined the possible motives of the six accused, and told the court that it is a fallacy to believe that a crime committed to further what the perpetrator considers to be a good cause is not a crime.
“It is completely irrelevant that they did this with the motive of advancing CHC’s interests”, she said.
The last day of the trial is Tuesday (Sep 15), when the defence counsels of the six accused will have time to respond to the prosecution’s closing submissions.
City Harvest Church (CHC) founder Kong Hee and five others are on trial for allegedly misusing S$24 million of church funds to finance the Crossover Project, the church's way of evangelising people through the secular music career of Sun Ho, who is Kong’s wife.
Another S$26.6 million was used to cover up the amount, allegedly through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, which are owned by CHC supporters.
In court on Monday (Sep 14), Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh said that it is a fallacy to feel that a crime committed to further what the perpetrator believes to be a good cause - is not a crime.
KONG A “WELL-PRACTISED LIAR”
DPP Chionh called Kong a “well-practised liar” and criticised him for not being able to “maintain a consistent position on critical factual issues”. Instead, DPP Chionh said, Kong sought to “portray his leadership role in managing CHC as being hands-off, indirect” and when faced with damning evidence, “insulate(d) himself” by attributing his approval for the sham transactions to information given to him by “professionals”.
This “flies in the face of all the evidence” which shows Kong’s “indisputable role” in the Crossover Project, and his being a “meticulous and details-oriented leader … whose express approval was needed before the bonds could go ahead.”
LAM WAS THE "INSIDE MAN"
Each of the accused had a specific role in the conspiracy, “based on their respective skills, experience and leadership positions in the church and the Crossover Project”, DPP Chionh told the court, adding that John Lam, former CHC board member, had a “special role” that none of his co-accused could have fulfilled. The Prosecution also called Lam the “inside man” in CHC’s governance and oversight bodies, who prevented the sham investment bonds from being found out.
TAN “DEEPLY CYNICAL AND SELF-SERVING”
The prosecution called the defence of the third co-accused, CHC finance manager Sharon Tan, “deeply cynical and self-serving”. Her evidence demonstrates her “full participation” in the “planning, execution and subsequent cover-up” of the conspiracy, said DPP Chionh. But she portrayed herself as “a hard-working but naïve church employee” roped in to help with the sham, “in blissful ignorance of any wrongdoing” that her co-accused might have intended.
The prosecution accused Tan of attempting to minimise her involvement in the offences, citing her statement blaming co-accused Chew Eng Han, auditors, lawyers and the church board for her actions.
Tan had previously admitted to falsifying the church board’s minutes of meeting “to create the appearance that the (sham transactions) had been approved" by the board. Tan’s lawyer, Paul Seah, had put this down to “a mere failure of corporate governance” and the inexperience of Tan and the church’s management.
DPP Chionh responded by telling the court that it is “utterly absurd”, considering the sophistication and scale of the church’s operations, including “multi-million dollar financial transactions that (Tan) and her co-accused were involved in.”
“CHC was not some struggling new voluntary outfit run by bumbling amateurs with no experience of the financial world”, DPP Chionh said.
CHEW "INCOHERENT AND LACKS CREDIBILITY"
Chew Eng Han, a former CHC fund manager, argued that the sham investments into Xtron and Firna were actually investments into Ms Ho’s music career, ironically exposing that the bonds were not investments at all. However, he went on to take “multiple positions that are irreconcilable”, saying that the bonds were indeed genuine investments in Xtron and Firna.
DPP Chionh told the court that this shows the “incoherence and the lack of credibility” of Chew’s defence.
TAN’S ROLE IN SHAM INVESTMENT “INDISPENSABLE”
The prosector then went on to criticise Tan Ye Peng’s defence, calling it an attempt to “cast responsibility for any and all” incriminating acts on co-accused Kong and Chew. However, throughout the course of the lengthy trial, the prosecution said that “the evidence … is that (Tan) played an indispensable … role in relation to the sham investment” and noted that Tan’s authority was second only to Kong’s in the management of the Crossover Project.
WEE "THE MOST INEXTRICABLY INVOLVED”
Serina Wee, who DPP Chionh called “the most inextricably involved” in the conspiracy because of her role as the Crossover administrator, had to keep track of the accounts and budgeting for Ms Ho’s music career, which included “monitoring the movement … and planning and monitoring the progress” of the sham transactions.
In closing, DPP Chionh also examined the possible motives of the six accused, and told the court that it is a fallacy to believe that a crime committed to further what the perpetrator considers to be a good cause is not a crime.
“It is completely irrelevant that they did this with the motive of advancing CHC’s interests”, she said.
The last day of the trial is Tuesday (Sep 15), when the defence counsels of the six accused will have time to respond to the prosecution’s closing submissions.
No comments:
Post a Comment