Four accused say they were entitled to invest church funds in music career of pastor's wife
The long-running City Harvest trial closed yesterday, with four of the accused stressing that there was no wrongful loss suffered by City Harvest Church (CHC).
They said they were entitled legally to invest church funds in the music career of the pastor's wife as it was a church objective.
This was their stand as lawyers on both sides wrapped up their closing submissions on the 140th day of the trial. A verdict will be delivered on Oct 21 by Presiding Judge of the State Courts See Kee Oon.
Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan, acting for 42-year-old deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, said it was "crystal clear" to church auditors and lawyers that money from CHC's building fund was invested in pop singer Ho Yeow Sun's music career.
"The money that went out came back to the church, with interest," he said, adding that evidence showed the church was allowed to invest in Ms Ho's career.
But whether this investment was an authorised use of the building fund, is a point disputed by the prosecution. Ms Ho is the wife of senior pastor Kong Hee, 51.
Kong, Tan and four others are accused of misappropriating $24 million in CHC's building funds through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass maker Firna, and of misusing a further $26 million to cover it up.
The four others are former finance managers Serina Wee, 38, and Sharon Tan, 39, and former investment committee members Chew Eng Han, 55, and John Lam, 47. The bonds were used to bankroll Ms Ho's music career. CHC wanted to use her music to spread the Gospel through what it called the Crossover Project.
Wee's lawyer, Senior Counsel Andre Maniam, said it was "very significant" that the prosecution did not dispute that the Crossover Project was in line with church objectives.
"The prosecution says that we are like Robin Hood, trying to justify robbing the rich to give to the poor... Here, it was church funds being used to further church objectives, not taking money from rich to give to poor," said Mr Maniam.
Chew, representing himself, said the funds were invested in Xtron and Firna - which had legal obligations to return the money. But the recoverability of the bonds was based on projections of Ms Ho's unreleased US album - for which his fellow co-accused had to rely on Kong . "For the obvious reason that the one that has the most knowledge and the one that's managing it is Kong Hee himself," said Chew.
He also hit back at the prosecution, who called his evidence incoherent on Monday.
Chew, who has three decades of experience in finance, said: "Just because the prosecution cannot understand my explanation, doesn't mean I've contradicted myself between my evidence-in-chief and submissions. I think they had better go and take some courses in financial markets before they throw insults at me."
Meanwhile, Sharon Tan's lawyer Paul Seah reiterated that his client was "merely a worker taking instructions and carrying them out".
The lawyers for Kong and Lam responded on Monday.
Rounding up the submissions, Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh called into question the defence's argument that the accused had acted in good faith.
She asked the court to consider their actions over the years - such as when Kong told CHC executive members in 2007 that the building fund was to be invested to preserve its value, while at the same time, he planned to spend $13 million from it on Ms Ho's music career.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Monday, September 14, 2015
Both senior pastors 'are liars and lack credibility' (ST: 15 Sept 2015)
The men, who claim they acted on advice, are not naive, says DPP in closing submissions
The two most senior leaders of City Harvest Church (CHC) are liars and men without credibility, said Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh yesterday as she highlighted the contradictions in evidence given by pastors Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng.
In her closing oral submissions for the long-running trial, Ms Chionh slammed each of the six co-accused's efforts to distance themselves from the alleged crime.
Kong, 50; Tan, 42; and four others are accused of misappropriating $24 million in CHC's building funds through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass maker Firna, and of misusing a further $26 million to cover it up.
Also facing charges are former finance managers Serina Wee, 38; and Sharon Tan, 39; and former investment committee members Chew Eng Han, 54; and John Lam, 47. The bonds were used to bankroll pop singer Ho Yeow Sun's music career.
CHC wanted to use Ms Ho's music to spread the Gospel through what they called the Crossover Project. Ms Ho is Kong's wife.
Calling Kong a "well-practised liar" with an "utter lack of credibility", Ms Chionh told the court to reject his testimony.
Kong has maintained that he had been acting on the advice of auditors and lawyers as far as the sham bonds were concerned.
"Far from being a mere figurehead... (Kong) was a meticulous and details-oriented leader whose express approval was needed before the bonds could go ahead," said Ms Chionh.
Kong's deputy, Tan, has taken a similar defence. He has told the court that he relied on "advice and blessing" given by auditors and fellow co-accused Chew.
The implicit message was that Tan was a naive man dependent on others to make decisions and was incapable of exercising his own judgment, said Ms Chionh.
"But what this claim entirely neglects is the reality that, at the relevant time, Tan Ye Peng's authority was second only to Kong Hee's in the management of the Crossover," she added.
Ms Chionh also took aim at Sharon Tan's assertions that she too was a "naive church employee", noting that she had helped deceive auditors by altering minutes of church board meetings.
She rubbished the defence's claim that this was a mere failure of corporate governance arising from ignorance. This was absurd, given the sophistication and scale of the church's operations, she said.
"CHC was not some struggling new voluntary outfit run by bumbling amateurs with no experience of the financial world," she said .
She noted too that Lam was the group's "inside man in the church's governance and oversight bodies, preventing these bodies from discovering the sham nature of the bonds". Lam was on the church board and investment committee.
The prosecution also blasted Wee's defence, calling it superficial and a bare denial in the face of the evidence.
Wee's lawyer had said last week that his client acted with "no dishonest intent" and believed the bonds were not a sham.
Ms Chionh, however, said: "(Wee) was arguably the most inextricably involved in all the sham bond and the round-tripping transactions because of the nature of her role as the Crossover administrator."
She also accused Chew of being inconsistent in his defence, adding that his argument in his written submissions that the bonds were investments in Ms Ho's album project was indicative that they were a sham - because they were not investments in the two companies.
Two defence lawyers also responded yesterday.
Lam's lawyer, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, said his client had nothing to gain by being a "saboteur" in the committees he was in.
"That's simply incompatible with the Bible, with God and with common sense," said Mr Tan.
Senior Counsel Edwin Tong, who is acting for Kong, also noted that "every single cent" drawn from the bonds went into the Crossover and there was no personal gain by Kong or any of the accused.
The rest of the defence will respond today as the case heads into its final chapter and 140th day.
A DETAILS MAN
Far from being a mere figurehead... (Kong) was a meticulous and details-oriented leader whose express approval was needed before the bonds could go ahead.
MS MAVIS CHIONH, Deputy Public Prosecutor, on Kong Hee's defence
The two most senior leaders of City Harvest Church (CHC) are liars and men without credibility, said Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh yesterday as she highlighted the contradictions in evidence given by pastors Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng.
In her closing oral submissions for the long-running trial, Ms Chionh slammed each of the six co-accused's efforts to distance themselves from the alleged crime.
Kong, 50; Tan, 42; and four others are accused of misappropriating $24 million in CHC's building funds through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass maker Firna, and of misusing a further $26 million to cover it up.
Also facing charges are former finance managers Serina Wee, 38; and Sharon Tan, 39; and former investment committee members Chew Eng Han, 54; and John Lam, 47. The bonds were used to bankroll pop singer Ho Yeow Sun's music career.
CHC wanted to use Ms Ho's music to spread the Gospel through what they called the Crossover Project. Ms Ho is Kong's wife.
Calling Kong a "well-practised liar" with an "utter lack of credibility", Ms Chionh told the court to reject his testimony.
Kong has maintained that he had been acting on the advice of auditors and lawyers as far as the sham bonds were concerned.
"Far from being a mere figurehead... (Kong) was a meticulous and details-oriented leader whose express approval was needed before the bonds could go ahead," said Ms Chionh.
Kong's deputy, Tan, has taken a similar defence. He has told the court that he relied on "advice and blessing" given by auditors and fellow co-accused Chew.
The implicit message was that Tan was a naive man dependent on others to make decisions and was incapable of exercising his own judgment, said Ms Chionh.
"But what this claim entirely neglects is the reality that, at the relevant time, Tan Ye Peng's authority was second only to Kong Hee's in the management of the Crossover," she added.
Ms Chionh also took aim at Sharon Tan's assertions that she too was a "naive church employee", noting that she had helped deceive auditors by altering minutes of church board meetings.
She rubbished the defence's claim that this was a mere failure of corporate governance arising from ignorance. This was absurd, given the sophistication and scale of the church's operations, she said.
"CHC was not some struggling new voluntary outfit run by bumbling amateurs with no experience of the financial world," she said .
She noted too that Lam was the group's "inside man in the church's governance and oversight bodies, preventing these bodies from discovering the sham nature of the bonds". Lam was on the church board and investment committee.
The prosecution also blasted Wee's defence, calling it superficial and a bare denial in the face of the evidence.
Wee's lawyer had said last week that his client acted with "no dishonest intent" and believed the bonds were not a sham.
Ms Chionh, however, said: "(Wee) was arguably the most inextricably involved in all the sham bond and the round-tripping transactions because of the nature of her role as the Crossover administrator."
She also accused Chew of being inconsistent in his defence, adding that his argument in his written submissions that the bonds were investments in Ms Ho's album project was indicative that they were a sham - because they were not investments in the two companies.
Two defence lawyers also responded yesterday.
Lam's lawyer, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, said his client had nothing to gain by being a "saboteur" in the committees he was in.
"That's simply incompatible with the Bible, with God and with common sense," said Mr Tan.
Senior Counsel Edwin Tong, who is acting for Kong, also noted that "every single cent" drawn from the bonds went into the Crossover and there was no personal gain by Kong or any of the accused.
The rest of the defence will respond today as the case heads into its final chapter and 140th day.
A DETAILS MAN
Far from being a mere figurehead... (Kong) was a meticulous and details-oriented leader whose express approval was needed before the bonds could go ahead.
MS MAVIS CHIONH, Deputy Public Prosecutor, on Kong Hee's defence
City Harvest Church not run by ‘bumbling amateurs’ with no financial experience: Prosecutor (CNA: 14 Sept 2015)
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.
We were acting on advice, say co-accused: City Harvest trial (ST: 11 Sept 2015)
In one of their last chances to prove their innocence, the six
co-accused in the long-running City Harvest trial yesterday tried to
distance themselves from allegations that they had misappropriated $50
million in church funds.
During the case's final oral submissions, Mr Jason Chan, the lawyer for City Harvest Church (CHC) senior pastor Kong Hee, said his client had specifically directed the bond transactions be "okay-ed" by CHC's auditors and lawyers.
Deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42, also claimed he was acting on the advice of auditors and fellow church leaders, while the lawyer for former finance manager Serina Wee, 38, said she had acted with no dishonest intent.
Mr Chan said: "No red flags concerning the legal entitlement to use the building fund in such a manner were raised to any of the accused persons."
He added that if 50-year-old Kong truly had "questionable motives" he would not have sought the advice of external experts.
Kong and five others are accused of misappropriating $24 million in CHC's building funds through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, and allegedly misusing a further $26 million to cover it up.
Also facing charges are former finance manager Sharon Tan, 39, and former investment committee members Chew Eng Han, 54, and John Lam, 47.
The money was used to bankroll pop singer Ho Yeow Sun's music career. CHC wanted to use Ms Ho's music to spread the Gospel - through what they called the Crossover Project.
Ms Ho is Kong's wife.
The prosecution has charged that Kong dishonestly and knowingly used church building funds for purposes other than building-related matters.
But Mr Chan said the church was "legally entitled to invest the building fund" to support the Crossover project as it was a church mission.
Tan's lawyer Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan agreed, saying it was not for the prosecution to say whether Crossover was an "authorised purpose of the church".
"There is a Chinese saying, 'other people eat noodles, don't say hot, hot'... It cannot be for the prosecution to cobble together a case of unauthorised use," he said.
Mr Sreenivasan also addressed prosecution claims that Tan was trying to cast aside criminal responsibility by saying he had relied on the advice of Kong, Chew and auditors. "All (Tan) said is, 'I'm in Singapore, Kong Hee is in the US, he's running the US side of things, he sends the information to me'."
He added that it was "perfectly okay" to accept Chew's recommendations of bond investments without challenging and probing him because "that's not the way friends and fellow church members behave".
Wee's lawyer Senior Counsel Andre Maniam also pointed out that his client had no dishonest intent.
Citing an e-mail Wee had sent to Firna director Wahju Hanafi, Tan and Chew - that contained a business plan - Mr Maniam said this would not have been done if the Firna bonds were a sham with "no real obligations".
He noted that Mr Hanafi had responded with questions, which Tan had answered. "(Tan) never said, 'Wahju, you know, can you get with the plan? This is all for show... You are not investing in anything. You are just passing money on'," Mr Maniam told the Court.
He added that Tan had answered Mr Hanafi's queries seriously.
Meanwhile, lawyers for both John Lam and Sharon Tan also sought to distance their clients from the alleged crime.
Lam's lawyer Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan said his client was just "honestly trying as a volunteer, to fulfil his responsibilities" as a member of the church board and investment committee.
He said that just because Lam was included in a string of e-mails concerning the Xtron bonds did not mean he had a role in the alleged conspiracy.
"Just because somebody is a party sometimes to a long string of e-mails and is asked a specific question... it doesn't mean that he knows about everything in the (e-mail) chain," said Mr Tan.
Sharon Tan's lawyer Paul Seah also said that his client had no motive to take part in the conspiracy as she had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
"She did not take a cut from the proceeds. She was not going to get a pay rise or an extra bonus for what she did," he said, adding that she was just acting as an employee of the church.
The prosecution will respond to these final submissions on Monday, the 139th day of the trial.
..................................................
NO RED FLAGS
No red flags concerning the legal entitlement to use the building fund in such a manner were raised to any of the accused persons.
MR JASON CHAN, lawyer for City Harvest Church's senior pastor Kong Hee
..................................................
Crossover Project a sham, says former investment manager
The Crossover Project and music career of pop singer Ho Yeow Sun were the real shams, not the bond investments he had designed to support them.
This was how City Harvest Church's former investment manager Chew Eng Han defended himself yesterday in court during his final oral submissions in the long-running trial.
The Crossover Project was the church's plan to use Ms Ho's secular music to spread the Gospel.
The prosecution alleges that $50 million from the church building fund was channelled into sham bond investments, with its misuse covered up. But Chew, 54, who is conducting his own defence, claimed that founding pastor Kong Hee, who is Ms Ho's husband and one of the accused, had "personally gained" from the bond transactions intended to fund the Crossover. Chew highlighted one instance in 2008, where $200,000 from the bonds were transferred to Kong.
He also claimed that the $24 million that CHC invested in bonds from music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, were strategised by Kong as a way to fund the Crossover discreetly. This was a response to concerns about the misuse of church funds raised by former churchgoer Roland Poon in 2003. Mr Poon had accused the church of using members' donations to fund Ms Ho's music career.
Chew, who left the church in 2013, had devised the bonds as a means to fund Ms Ho's career through an external party.
"I had a pure frame of mind," he said, adding that what he had done was legal, authorised and in line with market practices.
He pointed out that Xtron, which managed Ms Ho, was legally obliged to repay its debts to the church. The bonds needed to be repaid, otherwise it would constitute misappropriation of funds and a wrongful loss, said Chew.
But Xtron was relying on the proceeds from Ms Ho's English album in order to raise funds.
When the album's release was delayed a few years later, Chew extended the bond maturity to 10 years, from two years previously.
"That's what the prosecution has been doing, taking events which happened one, two, three years later, and saying, 'There you are, you knew the bonds couldn't be repaid. You knew it was a sham," he said.
Citing his three decade-long experience in finance, he said: "In this whole trial, I've said nothing but the truth, Your Honour."
During the case's final oral submissions, Mr Jason Chan, the lawyer for City Harvest Church (CHC) senior pastor Kong Hee, said his client had specifically directed the bond transactions be "okay-ed" by CHC's auditors and lawyers.
Deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42, also claimed he was acting on the advice of auditors and fellow church leaders, while the lawyer for former finance manager Serina Wee, 38, said she had acted with no dishonest intent.
Mr Chan said: "No red flags concerning the legal entitlement to use the building fund in such a manner were raised to any of the accused persons."
He added that if 50-year-old Kong truly had "questionable motives" he would not have sought the advice of external experts.
Kong and five others are accused of misappropriating $24 million in CHC's building funds through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, and allegedly misusing a further $26 million to cover it up.
Also facing charges are former finance manager Sharon Tan, 39, and former investment committee members Chew Eng Han, 54, and John Lam, 47.
The money was used to bankroll pop singer Ho Yeow Sun's music career. CHC wanted to use Ms Ho's music to spread the Gospel - through what they called the Crossover Project.
Ms Ho is Kong's wife.
The prosecution has charged that Kong dishonestly and knowingly used church building funds for purposes other than building-related matters.
But Mr Chan said the church was "legally entitled to invest the building fund" to support the Crossover project as it was a church mission.
Tan's lawyer Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan agreed, saying it was not for the prosecution to say whether Crossover was an "authorised purpose of the church".
"There is a Chinese saying, 'other people eat noodles, don't say hot, hot'... It cannot be for the prosecution to cobble together a case of unauthorised use," he said.
Mr Sreenivasan also addressed prosecution claims that Tan was trying to cast aside criminal responsibility by saying he had relied on the advice of Kong, Chew and auditors. "All (Tan) said is, 'I'm in Singapore, Kong Hee is in the US, he's running the US side of things, he sends the information to me'."
He added that it was "perfectly okay" to accept Chew's recommendations of bond investments without challenging and probing him because "that's not the way friends and fellow church members behave".
Wee's lawyer Senior Counsel Andre Maniam also pointed out that his client had no dishonest intent.
Citing an e-mail Wee had sent to Firna director Wahju Hanafi, Tan and Chew - that contained a business plan - Mr Maniam said this would not have been done if the Firna bonds were a sham with "no real obligations".
He noted that Mr Hanafi had responded with questions, which Tan had answered. "(Tan) never said, 'Wahju, you know, can you get with the plan? This is all for show... You are not investing in anything. You are just passing money on'," Mr Maniam told the Court.
He added that Tan had answered Mr Hanafi's queries seriously.
Meanwhile, lawyers for both John Lam and Sharon Tan also sought to distance their clients from the alleged crime.
Lam's lawyer Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan said his client was just "honestly trying as a volunteer, to fulfil his responsibilities" as a member of the church board and investment committee.
He said that just because Lam was included in a string of e-mails concerning the Xtron bonds did not mean he had a role in the alleged conspiracy.
"Just because somebody is a party sometimes to a long string of e-mails and is asked a specific question... it doesn't mean that he knows about everything in the (e-mail) chain," said Mr Tan.
Sharon Tan's lawyer Paul Seah also said that his client had no motive to take part in the conspiracy as she had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
"She did not take a cut from the proceeds. She was not going to get a pay rise or an extra bonus for what she did," he said, adding that she was just acting as an employee of the church.
The prosecution will respond to these final submissions on Monday, the 139th day of the trial.
..................................................
NO RED FLAGS
No red flags concerning the legal entitlement to use the building fund in such a manner were raised to any of the accused persons.
MR JASON CHAN, lawyer for City Harvest Church's senior pastor Kong Hee
..................................................
Crossover Project a sham, says former investment manager
The Crossover Project and music career of pop singer Ho Yeow Sun were the real shams, not the bond investments he had designed to support them.
This was how City Harvest Church's former investment manager Chew Eng Han defended himself yesterday in court during his final oral submissions in the long-running trial.
The Crossover Project was the church's plan to use Ms Ho's secular music to spread the Gospel.
The prosecution alleges that $50 million from the church building fund was channelled into sham bond investments, with its misuse covered up. But Chew, 54, who is conducting his own defence, claimed that founding pastor Kong Hee, who is Ms Ho's husband and one of the accused, had "personally gained" from the bond transactions intended to fund the Crossover. Chew highlighted one instance in 2008, where $200,000 from the bonds were transferred to Kong.
He also claimed that the $24 million that CHC invested in bonds from music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, were strategised by Kong as a way to fund the Crossover discreetly. This was a response to concerns about the misuse of church funds raised by former churchgoer Roland Poon in 2003. Mr Poon had accused the church of using members' donations to fund Ms Ho's music career.
Chew, who left the church in 2013, had devised the bonds as a means to fund Ms Ho's career through an external party.
"I had a pure frame of mind," he said, adding that what he had done was legal, authorised and in line with market practices.
He pointed out that Xtron, which managed Ms Ho, was legally obliged to repay its debts to the church. The bonds needed to be repaid, otherwise it would constitute misappropriation of funds and a wrongful loss, said Chew.
But Xtron was relying on the proceeds from Ms Ho's English album in order to raise funds.
When the album's release was delayed a few years later, Chew extended the bond maturity to 10 years, from two years previously.
"That's what the prosecution has been doing, taking events which happened one, two, three years later, and saying, 'There you are, you knew the bonds couldn't be repaid. You knew it was a sham," he said.
Citing his three decade-long experience in finance, he said: "In this whole trial, I've said nothing but the truth, Your Honour."
In
one of their last chances to prove their innocence, the six co-accused
in the long-running City Harvest trial yesterday tried to distance
themselves from allegations that they had misappropriated $50 million in
church funds.
During the case's final oral submissions, Mr Jason Chan, the lawyer for City Harvest Church (CHC) senior pastor Kong Hee, said his client had specifically directed the bond transactions be "okay-ed" by CHC's auditors and lawyers.
Deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42, also claimed he was acting on the advice of auditors and fellow church leaders, while the lawyer for former finance manager Serina Wee, 38, said she had acted with no dishonest intent.
Mr Chan said: "No red flags concerning the legal entitlement to use the building fund in such a manner were raised to any of the accused persons."
He added that if 50-year-old Kong truly had "questionable motives" he would not have sought the advice of external experts.
Kong and five others are accused of misappropriating $24 million in CHC's building funds through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, and allegedly misusing a further $26 million to cover it up.
Also facing charges are former finance manager Sharon Tan, 39, and former investment committee members Chew Eng Han, 54, and John Lam, 47.
The money was used to bankroll pop singer Ho Yeow Sun's music career. CHC wanted to use Ms Ho's music to spread the Gospel - through what they called the Crossover Project.
Ms Ho is Kong's wife.
The prosecution has charged that Kong dishonestly and knowingly used church building funds for purposes other than building-related matters.
But Mr Chan said the church was "legally entitled to invest the building fund" to support the Crossover project as it was a church mission.
Tan's lawyer Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan agreed, saying it was not for the prosecution to say whether Crossover was an "authorised purpose of the church".
"There is a Chinese saying, 'other people eat noodles, don't say hot, hot'... It cannot be for the prosecution to cobble together a case of unauthorised use," he said.
Mr Sreenivasan also addressed prosecution claims that Tan was trying to cast aside criminal responsibility by saying he had relied on the advice of Kong, Chew and auditors. "All (Tan) said is, 'I'm in Singapore, Kong Hee is in the US, he's running the US side of things, he sends the information to me'."
He added that it was "perfectly okay" to accept Chew's recommendations of bond investments without challenging and probing him because "that's not the way friends and fellow church members behave".
Wee's lawyer Senior Counsel Andre Maniam also pointed out that his client had no dishonest intent.
Citing an e-mail Wee had sent to Firna director Wahju Hanafi, Tan and Chew - that contained a business plan - Mr Maniam said this would not have been done if the Firna bonds were a sham with "no real obligations".
He noted that Mr Hanafi had responded with questions, which Tan had answered. "(Tan) never said, 'Wahju, you know, can you get with the plan? This is all for show... You are not investing in anything. You are just passing money on'," Mr Maniam told the Court.
He added that Tan had answered Mr Hanafi's queries seriously.
Meanwhile, lawyers for both John Lam and Sharon Tan also sought to distance their clients from the alleged crime.
Lam's lawyer Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan said his client was just "honestly trying as a volunteer, to fulfil his responsibilities" as a member of the church board and investment committee.
He said that just because Lam was included in a string of e-mails concerning the Xtron bonds did not mean he had a role in the alleged conspiracy.
"Just because somebody is a party sometimes to a long string of e-mails and is asked a specific question... it doesn't mean that he knows about everything in the (e-mail) chain," said Mr Tan.
Sharon Tan's lawyer Paul Seah also said that his client had no motive to take part in the conspiracy as she had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
"She did not take a cut from the proceeds. She was not going to get a pay rise or an extra bonus for what she did," he said, adding that she was just acting as an employee of the church.
The prosecution will respond to these final submissions on Monday, the 139th day of the trial.
NO RED FLAGS
No red flags concerning the legal entitlement to use the building fund in such a manner were raised to any of the accused persons.
MR JASON CHAN, lawyer for City Harvest Church's senior pastor Kong Hee
Crossover Project a sham, says former investment manager
Crossover Project a sham, says former investment manager
The Crossover Project and music career of pop singer Ho Yeow Sun were the real shams, not the bond investments he had designed to support them.
This was how City Harvest Church's former investment manager Chew Eng Han defended himself yesterday in court during his final oral submissions in the long-running trial.
The Crossover Project was the church's plan to use Ms Ho's secular music to spread the Gospel.
The prosecution alleges that $50 million from the church building fund was channelled into sham bond investments, with its misuse covered up. But Chew, 54, who is conducting his own defence, claimed that founding pastor Kong Hee, who is Ms Ho's husband and one of the accused, had "personally gained" from the bond transactions intended to fund the Crossover. Chew highlighted one instance in 2008, where $200,000 from the bonds were transferred to Kong.
He also claimed that the $24 million that CHC invested in bonds from music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, were strategised by Kong as a way to fund the Crossover discreetly. This was a response to concerns about the misuse of church funds raised by former churchgoer Roland Poon in 2003. Mr Poon had accused the church of using members' donations to fund Ms Ho's music career.
Chew, who left the church in 2013, had devised the bonds as a means to fund Ms Ho's career through an external party.
"I had a pure frame of mind," he said, adding that what he had done was legal, authorised and in line with market practices.
He pointed out that Xtron, which managed Ms Ho, was legally obliged to repay its debts to the church. The bonds needed to be repaid, otherwise it would constitute misappropriation of funds and a wrongful loss, said Chew.
But Xtron was relying on the proceeds from Ms Ho's English album in order to raise funds.
When the album's release was delayed a few years later, Chew extended the bond maturity to 10 years, from two years previously.
"That's what the prosecution has been doing, taking events which happened one, two, three years later, and saying, 'There you are, you knew the bonds couldn't be repaid. You knew it was a sham," he said.
Citing his three decade-long experience in finance, he said: "In this whole trial, I've said nothing but the truth, Your Honour."
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/69730-we-were-acting-on-advice-say-co-accused-city-harvest-trial#sthash.YoriBw7R.dpuf
During the case's final oral submissions, Mr Jason Chan, the lawyer for City Harvest Church (CHC) senior pastor Kong Hee, said his client had specifically directed the bond transactions be "okay-ed" by CHC's auditors and lawyers.
Deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 42, also claimed he was acting on the advice of auditors and fellow church leaders, while the lawyer for former finance manager Serina Wee, 38, said she had acted with no dishonest intent.
Mr Chan said: "No red flags concerning the legal entitlement to use the building fund in such a manner were raised to any of the accused persons."
He added that if 50-year-old Kong truly had "questionable motives" he would not have sought the advice of external experts.
Kong and five others are accused of misappropriating $24 million in CHC's building funds through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, and allegedly misusing a further $26 million to cover it up.
Also facing charges are former finance manager Sharon Tan, 39, and former investment committee members Chew Eng Han, 54, and John Lam, 47.
The money was used to bankroll pop singer Ho Yeow Sun's music career. CHC wanted to use Ms Ho's music to spread the Gospel - through what they called the Crossover Project.
Ms Ho is Kong's wife.
The prosecution has charged that Kong dishonestly and knowingly used church building funds for purposes other than building-related matters.
But Mr Chan said the church was "legally entitled to invest the building fund" to support the Crossover project as it was a church mission.
Tan's lawyer Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan agreed, saying it was not for the prosecution to say whether Crossover was an "authorised purpose of the church".
"There is a Chinese saying, 'other people eat noodles, don't say hot, hot'... It cannot be for the prosecution to cobble together a case of unauthorised use," he said.
Mr Sreenivasan also addressed prosecution claims that Tan was trying to cast aside criminal responsibility by saying he had relied on the advice of Kong, Chew and auditors. "All (Tan) said is, 'I'm in Singapore, Kong Hee is in the US, he's running the US side of things, he sends the information to me'."
He added that it was "perfectly okay" to accept Chew's recommendations of bond investments without challenging and probing him because "that's not the way friends and fellow church members behave".
Wee's lawyer Senior Counsel Andre Maniam also pointed out that his client had no dishonest intent.
Citing an e-mail Wee had sent to Firna director Wahju Hanafi, Tan and Chew - that contained a business plan - Mr Maniam said this would not have been done if the Firna bonds were a sham with "no real obligations".
He noted that Mr Hanafi had responded with questions, which Tan had answered. "(Tan) never said, 'Wahju, you know, can you get with the plan? This is all for show... You are not investing in anything. You are just passing money on'," Mr Maniam told the Court.
He added that Tan had answered Mr Hanafi's queries seriously.
Meanwhile, lawyers for both John Lam and Sharon Tan also sought to distance their clients from the alleged crime.
Lam's lawyer Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan said his client was just "honestly trying as a volunteer, to fulfil his responsibilities" as a member of the church board and investment committee.
He said that just because Lam was included in a string of e-mails concerning the Xtron bonds did not mean he had a role in the alleged conspiracy.
"Just because somebody is a party sometimes to a long string of e-mails and is asked a specific question... it doesn't mean that he knows about everything in the (e-mail) chain," said Mr Tan.
Sharon Tan's lawyer Paul Seah also said that his client had no motive to take part in the conspiracy as she had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
"She did not take a cut from the proceeds. She was not going to get a pay rise or an extra bonus for what she did," he said, adding that she was just acting as an employee of the church.
The prosecution will respond to these final submissions on Monday, the 139th day of the trial.
NO RED FLAGS
No red flags concerning the legal entitlement to use the building fund in such a manner were raised to any of the accused persons.
MR JASON CHAN, lawyer for City Harvest Church's senior pastor Kong Hee
Crossover Project a sham, says former investment manager
Crossover Project a sham, says former investment manager
The Crossover Project and music career of pop singer Ho Yeow Sun were the real shams, not the bond investments he had designed to support them.
This was how City Harvest Church's former investment manager Chew Eng Han defended himself yesterday in court during his final oral submissions in the long-running trial.
The Crossover Project was the church's plan to use Ms Ho's secular music to spread the Gospel.
The prosecution alleges that $50 million from the church building fund was channelled into sham bond investments, with its misuse covered up. But Chew, 54, who is conducting his own defence, claimed that founding pastor Kong Hee, who is Ms Ho's husband and one of the accused, had "personally gained" from the bond transactions intended to fund the Crossover. Chew highlighted one instance in 2008, where $200,000 from the bonds were transferred to Kong.
He also claimed that the $24 million that CHC invested in bonds from music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, were strategised by Kong as a way to fund the Crossover discreetly. This was a response to concerns about the misuse of church funds raised by former churchgoer Roland Poon in 2003. Mr Poon had accused the church of using members' donations to fund Ms Ho's music career.
Chew, who left the church in 2013, had devised the bonds as a means to fund Ms Ho's career through an external party.
"I had a pure frame of mind," he said, adding that what he had done was legal, authorised and in line with market practices.
He pointed out that Xtron, which managed Ms Ho, was legally obliged to repay its debts to the church. The bonds needed to be repaid, otherwise it would constitute misappropriation of funds and a wrongful loss, said Chew.
But Xtron was relying on the proceeds from Ms Ho's English album in order to raise funds.
When the album's release was delayed a few years later, Chew extended the bond maturity to 10 years, from two years previously.
"That's what the prosecution has been doing, taking events which happened one, two, three years later, and saying, 'There you are, you knew the bonds couldn't be repaid. You knew it was a sham," he said.
Citing his three decade-long experience in finance, he said: "In this whole trial, I've said nothing but the truth, Your Honour."
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/69730-we-were-acting-on-advice-say-co-accused-city-harvest-trial#sthash.YoriBw7R.dpuf
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
19 May 2015 – Sun’s EIC (Last Part) (MrsLightnFriends: 25 May 2015)
Album buy up and Fans base
Recount of Sun’s EIC of May 19, 2015
Chew: Sun, were you aware that for the Mandarin albums, five Mandarin albums, that Xtron was purchasing your own albums?Sun: Your Honour, I wasn’t aware of that. I only remember that it must be “Lonely Travel” after the concerts, that the board [Refers to church board not Xtron board] did make the decision to buy some albums for evangelism, for other ministries and churches.
Chew: Were you aware that for the English singles, there was a team that was buying up the singles through the iTunes cards?
Sun: Your Honour, for that matter, I believe that it was told to me that it’s a marketing strategy and it’s meant for the fans, your Honour. And at that time, “Fancy Free” hasn’t gone full steam yet in the radio promotion, so they just wanted to maintain some kind of momentum. And it was said that at that time in Singapore, the fans couldn’t really buy iTunes, so these are meant for the fans.
Chew: Were you aware that Mark Kwan sent an email to Tan Ye Peng expressing his concern over your real fan base?
Sun: Your Honour, I remember this incident. This is concerning Wyclef wanted to tap into my Taiwan fans, because he wanted to do a tour in Taiwan, in the clubs.
Chew: So how did Mark Kwan come up with 1 to 2,000 fans, excluding the church?
Sun: Your Honour, I don’t know how Mark Kwan come up with 1 to 2,000 fans, because Mark has been there in all the concerts. He has seen the people, he has seen the fans are connected with the songs, bought the albums. I don’t know why he said that.
Chew: And he never shared this concern with you?
Sun: As in shared this concern with me?
Chew: Yes, while he was in the US with you.
Sun: I know that this matter was being brought up. In terms of what he said to me in details, I cannot remember. But I know that it was Wyclef’s show, it wasn’t my show. And my fans in Taiwan are Chinese-speaking, and many of them also got converted, your Honour, to being a Christian. So perhaps Ye Peng wasn’t so confident, you know, that this Christian fans that got converted, that their pastors or their parents will be willing for them to come, you know, for the show. And it’s Wyclef’s show, it’s not my show, and Wyclef is an English artiste, your Honour.
Chew: Sun, over the course of this trial, we have seen evidence, which you don’t have to open up, that towards the end of 2006, the album sales was projected at 900,000 copies for your US album. Sometime in May 2007 to the end of 2007, it was projected that 1.5 million copies. And in early 2008, the projections had gone up to 1.9 million copies. Was there anything that happened in the US from December 2006 all the way to January 2008 that would cause the projections to fluctuate from 900,000 to 1.9 million?
Sun: I believe, your Honour, it is because of my collaboration with Wyclef Jean in 2008.
Chew: How about 2006, when it was 900,000 copies? Who were you talking to?
Sun: Wyclef has also come in sometime in the middle of 2006. And I remember that after my Chinese album promotion, at the end of 2007 after I came back from China and I went on tour with Wyclef, from end 2007, your Honour, to beginning of 2008, and Wyclef saw how positive the audience, the US audience, is connected with me and the songs. That’s the reason why he wanted to rework and re-record the album, and that’s why he reached out to Lisa Ellis. Perhaps these are the reasons that contributed to the increase in projection.
Chew: Your Honour, I’ve finished with my examination-in-chief.
Sun cross-examined by Senior Counsel Edwin Tong.
SC Tong brought up a blackberry pin messages that Chew sent to Sun. (Timeline: around 28 May 2010)Kong wrote to Chew and he told him that Sun was super discouraged by the comments in the blogs.
Chew replied
“These are the minority who try to amplify their few voices. Do let Sun know the truth is that we have thousands in and outside the church who support and love her….
Don’t think too much of these minority bloggers. They only a handful speak with malice but without full knowledge of the things they attack, be it Suntec, Amac, Xtron or yourself. We showed videos of your works at Asia Conference and it touched everyone, and that’s the real stuff”
“These are the minority who try to amplify their few voices. Do let Sun know the truth is that we have thousands in and outside the church who support and love her….
Don’t think too much of these minority bloggers. They only a handful speak with malice but without full knowledge of the things they attack, be it Suntec, Amac, Xtron or yourself. We showed videos of your works at Asia Conference and it touched everyone, and that’s the real stuff”
Sun: To the best of my recollection, your Honour, no. I don’t remember having a discussion with Eng Han about this.
SC Tong: Had Mr Chew questioned the success of the Asian Crossover previously?
Sun: No, your Honour. I don’t remember Eng Han questioning the success of the Asian Crossover previously.
…..
SC Tong: That’s his true view, isn’t it?
Sun: Your Honour, I have always felt supported by Eng Han and Janet, up till Eng Han and the family left the church. So I would believe that that is his true view, yes.
SC Tong: These messages written in his own hand, as at end of March 2010, they were consistently his views all the way until this point of time until he left the church. Correct?
Sun: That’s correct, your Honour.
SC Tong: And then he suddenly questioned, like this morning: 4 million, 150,000, maybe you were not as successful in Asia as you made it out to be. Right?
Sun: That’s correct, your Honour.
SC Tong: But until then, he was talking about how you touched everyone and that’s the real stuff, and how that’s why the church support and love the Crossover Project. Correct?
Sun: That’s correct, your Honour.
SC Tong: Thank you. Your Honour, I have no further questions. Thank you, Sun.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
19 May 2015 – Sun’s EIC (Part 3) (MrsLightnFriends: 23 May 2015)
“Go back to launch the album” and
“Who owns the songs?”
Before we see Sun’s EIC of 19 May 2015, I think we should read Eng Han’s EIC of 26 Jan 2015.
Eng Han’s EIC of Jan 26 2015.
Eng Han said to Kong and Sun (Timeline: Between June 2010 to November 2010)
“We can win easily. The album is supposed to be almost ready. Send Sun
back, launch her album, show that the earnings are going to come in,
it’s going to bring in profits and, therefore, it’s a real investment. Nothing better than have the sales talk for us.”
Kong Hee replied to me and said, “No, the church needs Sun, Sun has to stay back.”
Sun gave me a different reply, Sun said, “No, I need to be with my husband.”
At another occasion when I asked Kong to
launch the album, his reply to me was a different reply. He
said, “because the songs were too outdated to launch.”
Then I said, “Then can’t we just spend a little bit of money and repackage the songs?” That’s when he told me, “We can’t because the songs don’t belong to us.”
That’s why in cross-examination I asked
Kong, “Who owns the songs?”
Your Honour, I’m bringing this up because
this is a CBT case. Criminal Breach of Trust, misuse of funds. And with
respect to the prosecution, I
think the prosecution needs to go into the usage of the funds, not the
structuring of the bonds. The one that spends the money, the one that
has discretion, and the one that spends the money needs to answer “where
are the songs, who owns the songs?” because if he doesn’t know, that is
an outright misuse of the money; $24million spent and he doesn’t know
who owns the songs.”
Another point in time [Timeline: After
June 2011] we were charged, I told Kong Hee, “Call Justin Hertz, the
professional that gave you all the projections. Get him to court to tell
the court that it was real business sense to launch Sun’s album, Sun
was going to be a hit.”
His reply to me was, “No, we can’t.” I asked him
why. No answer.
If Kong Hee really meant what he said in
EIC, that every dollar invested must go back to the church, and that
there was expectations for big sums of revenue to come in, then, surely,
the most logical and responsible thing for him to do is to finish up
the album and to launch it, put aside every other matters.
Recount of Sun’s EIC of May 19, 2015
Chew: Do you remember me telling you and Kong Hee to go back and launch the album?
Sun: Yes, your Honour. I remember Eng Han having that conversation with me.
Chew: Did we have hopes to make money?
Sun: Yes, your Honour. All this while,
we always believed in the commercial success of the album. And the
reason why we wanted to do the US album, your Honour, is so that when we
have commercial success of the US album, it will be tremendous for the
Crossover Project. It will bring the influence of the Crossover Project
to a global level and it will open more doors for us, including China,
to be able to preach Jesus Christ to the unsaved and also to encourage
the Christian artiste and also to engage communities to do our
humanitarian work, especially communities and countries that might not
be so friendly to Christianity.
<…. about the album sales and the meeting with S-Curve, Steve Greenberg…>
Chew: So in your talks with Jean Wyclef
and with Johnny Wright, when they talk to you about your potential,
doesn’t the issue of your past track record ever arise?
Sun: Actually, no, your Honour, because
the reason why Justin brought Wyclef on board was really because Wyclef
was successfully managed to help Shakira at that time, which is a non-US
artiste, to her height with “Hips Don’t Lie”. So we were always talking
about the commercial success of the US album in the US market.
Chew: So why didn’t you want to launch the album then in 2010?
Sun: Your Honour, I have always wanted
to launch the album and I have worked very hard for it. And by June
2010, before I came back, we were at the tail end of everything, just
waiting for S-Curve to finalise the contract. I was ready to go for the
promotion tour.
Chew: So you are saying after the CAD started investigating, you were ready to go back and launch?
Sun: No, your Honour, that’s not what
I’m saying. Actually, after the CAD started its investigation, I
remember Eng Han having that conversation with me, urging me to go back.
Your Honour, perhaps, if I push myself, I
could do that. But, your Honour, I’m also a wife, and my husband, he’s
been alleged of wrongdoing, and my son was having a lot of emotional
meltdowns because of innocent classmates asking him is his father in
jail already. I just don’t know as a wife, as a mother, is it the right
thing for me to leave my husband and not stand by him to go through this
period of time and also to bring his son away from him, your Honour?
And if something really happened to Kong, honestly, your Honour, I don’t
know can I manage to take care of my son alone with the burden of the
Crossover Project on my shoulder? I don’t know whether can I go on
performing as if nothing has happened, your Honour. And I was also
concerned about the church, because we are not the only one that has to
answer questions. Every single member of the church has their family
members and friends that ask them. And as a co-founder, I want to be
around to calm the church. I want to do my part to answer as many
questions as I can. So, your Honour, I don’t know can I realistically do
that. But in my mind, it was never a closed deal. I always thought to
myself that when everything is settled and if God is still willing, it
will be my privilege to be able to complete the Crossover, since we all,
not just me, have put so much effort into it.
Chew: Sun, I can understand the family
aspect of it, because I have a family as well. By this time, in 31 May
2010, you were aware of the deficit arising from the album expenses, 25
to 30 million. Correct?
Sun: That’s correct, your Honour.
Chew: You were aware that many of us laid down our lives for you and Kong Hee’s vision.
Sun: Your Honour, I would prefer to say that this is a vision from God to our church. This is all our vision.
Chew: I can understand you were worried
about Kong Hee, what’s going to happen to him. But didn’t it ever cross
your mind, Sun, that if you go back and launch the album, if it’s a big
hit and the sales comes in, your husband is going to be exonerated? Why
didn’t you go into it? Isn’t that what I told you, go and prove this
investment?
Sun: Your Honour, I can’t remember the
details of what Eng Han told me. I just feel that as a wife, I should be
by my husband’s side to walk through this journey with him. Moreover,
your Honour, I was also on bail, and only released from bail in 2013. I
wasn’t certain of what will happen. But like I said, your Honour, in my
mind, it’s never a closed deal. I have worked really hard for this
album. We’ve been away, not just me, the team, and even the team in
Singapore, everyone has put in so much effort to this US album. It would
be my greatest desire to be able to finish it. I was just waiting for
everything to settle down, yeah.
In relation to the question “Who owns the songs?”
Let’s see how Eng Han cross-examined Kong on August 18, 2014.
Chew:
Pastor Kong, do you remember preaching sermons to the church from the
Book of Daniel about how it was important for us not to look at the
outside but to look at the inside, because, in the book of Daniel, there
were people of God that were dressed up as magicians, astrologers, or
whatever, and you emphasized that we do not look at the outer appearance
but the inner appearance. Do you remember?
Kong: Yes, your Honour.
Chew: So when you changed your conviction about this, did you address the congregation on this?
Kong:
The whole focus of the sermon that I preached in church on the Book of
Daniel was on the importance of engaging the contemporary culture. I was
trying to achieve a few things your Honour. I’m trying to achieve first
of all, that we should learn to be accepting, that means, to show
understanding, to show love and respect to people who may be difference
from us.
Another
thing that I wanted to show was there is a need to balance between what
is liberally out there in the world and what is conservative within the
church. I said the place where you can find a balance, that’s a place
you find successful ministry. So it’s not rejecting of one extreme to
embrace another extreme, but trying to find moderation and balance, your
Honour.
So
I think whilst Sun could grow stylistically with reggae music, and
she’s not saying, or I am not saying that she felt the reggae music is
wrong, it was just stylistically, its not a natural fit for her as a
Asian singer. So she’s not making a value judgment that reggae music was
wrong. She’s not as comfortable, she could sing other better songs in
another kind of genre, and that was being achieved when she switched
over to Johnny Wright’s management.
<…….questions and answers …>
Chew: Pastor Kong, do you remember on 1 May 2007, we had a family day concert in church?
Kong: Yes, your Honour.
Chew: And Sun and her dancers were performing to “China Wine”, right?
Kong: Yes, your Honour.
Chew: During that performance, you asked the church, “Hey, guys, are you all comfortable with this?”
Kong: I cannot remember, your Honour, but I may have.
Chew:
Pastor Kong, I’ll just submit to you that you will flip and turn on
your convictions, depending on the circumstances, and you were totally
comfortable about “China Wine”, so much so that you even allowed Sun Ho
to dance before the congregation, but today you are telling a story that
is otherwise not true.
Kong:
Your Honour, if we were totally comfortable with “China Wine” all the
way through, we would have kept that song as one of the songs in the
debut album that was supposed to be launched in 2010.
Chew:
Talking about songs, do you remember that I asked you and Sun, “Why not
send Sun back to launch the album and let’s prove to the authorities
that this is a real investment, because money talks, right, the revenue
is going to come in?” Do you remember that?
Kong: Vaguely, your Honour.
Chew:
Your answer to me was, you said the songs were too old, they need to be
repackaged, and I said, “Then just let’s get the songs and repackage
it, spend a bit of money”, and your reply to me was, “We don’t own the
songs.” Do you remember this?
Kong: Yes, your Honour.
Chew:
But today in evidence you have just told me you are not sure whether we
own the songs, maybe Xtron owns the songs. So which is which?
Kong:
Your Honour, there are a lot of songs, depending on which songs he’s
talking about. There are the songs from the early days, there are the
songs from Wyclef Jean, there are the songs from Johnny Wright.
Chew: What about the songs from Johnny Wright that were about to be launched, did we own the songs?
Kong:
I think the song with Johnny Wright, I think it was a partnership, a
joint ownership of the songs and there was an expiration date as to when
the songs must be released.
Let’s go back to Sun’s EIC of May 19, 2015
Chew: Sun, where are the songs today? Who owns them?
Sun: Your Honour, I believe that we own
most of the songs. The reason why I say that was because I worked with
the A-list producers, and I remember that there are different
arrangement with the producers. Some of these A-list producers, they
really have faith in their productions. They believe that their songs
can sell millions. So sometimes when they give us the material, they
also put a caveat that if after recording the songs and we don’t release
the song, after a certain number of years, they can have the song back.
But I believe that most of the songs would owned by Xtron or UA.
Chew: Does anyone in the team know for sure whether Xtron owns it?
Sun: To the best of my knowledge, your
Honour, when it comes to copyright and publishing entity, it would be
Justin that would be in charge.
<…….questions and answers …>
Chew: Sun, do you remember that during
the CAD investigations, and after we got charged as well, I suggested
that we call Justin Herz down as a witness. Do you remember that?
Sun: Mm, I can’t really remember now, but it can be possible, yeah.
Chew; Most of the projections that were sent by Kong Hee to the team here in Singapore, would you say they came from Justin?
Sun: To the best of my knowledge, I would think so, your Honour.
Chew: Actually, I asked Kong Hee to
bring down Justin Herz as our witness, and he declined. Do you know any
reason why we can’t get Justing Herz to come down?
Sun: Your Honour, I’m not sure was I privy to this conversation. So….
Chew: Putting aside the conversation.
Sun: Okay.
Chew: As far as your interaction with Justin is concerned, would he be willing to come down?
Sun: I think this is a hypothetical
question. I’m not sure. I know that Justin has always been supportive of
this whole album. But concerning this matter, I don’t know.
Chew: Didn’t you and Kong Hee ever think that it would be good to bring him down, since he’s the source of the projections?
Sun: Your Honour, to the best of my recollection, I don’t remember discussing this matter with Kong.
To complete the picture I need to write Sun’s cross-examination evidence.
Sun cross-examined by Kong’s lawyer
SC Tong: Sun, after the CAD raid, you were interviewed for a few times. Right?
Sun: That’s correct, your Honour. To the best of my recollection, I think it’s four times.
SC Tong: In which month did it end?
Sun: I cannot remember now, your Honour. I just know that it’s sometime in 2010.
SC Tong: All right. Do you remember me telling you and Kong Hee to go back and launch the album?
Sun: Yes, your Honour. I remember Eng Han having that conversation with me.
SC Tong: Did we have hopes to make money?
Sun: Yes, your Honour. All this while,
we always believed in the commercial success of the album. And the
reason why we wanted to do the US album, your Honour, is so that when we
have commercial success of the US album, it will be tremendous for the
Crossover Project. It will bring the influence of the Crossover Project
to a global level and it will open more doors for us, including China,
to be able to preach Jesus Christ to the unsaved and also to encourage
the Christian artiste and also to engage communities to do our
humanitarian work, especially communities and countries that might not
be so friendly to Christianity.
<…questions and answers…>
SC Tong produced a new email evidence in court.
DPP Tan stood up.
DPP: Sorry, Mr Tong. Your Honour, the
witness has already testified that she’s not involved in budgeting for
her music career, and Mr Tong has rightfully pointed out that this
witness is not in this email. So I was wondering what’s the relevance of
this email? Should it be admitted?
<…questions and answers…>
SC Tong explained that the email was
just for him to show what was being discussed, even at that point in
time, August 2010. It was for Tong to ask Sun whether she was aware of
that.
SC Tong: Again, the context is 31 May,
CAD investigations started. You recall that you had given a variety of
statements in June and July, this is now August. I’m trying to deal with
the point raised by Mr Chew as to whether you wanted to, you could
have, should have gone back to the US. Your answer this morning was you
kept the options open as much as you could, but you had your own
personal and family constraints. Do you recall that?
Sun: I recall that, your Honour.
SC Tong: Would it be fair to say,
looking at this email or otherwise, that as at August 2010, even in the
midst of the investigations, there was still attempts made by Pastor
Kong in particular to review, revise and look at the budget for the
project?
Sun: That’s correct, your Honour.
SC Tong: It would be fair to say that the team had not abandoned the project. Correct?
Sun: That’s correct, your Honour.
DPP objected.
DPP: Your Honour, I think my learned
friend has gone beyond what he originally set out when he tendered these
documents in evidence. I don’t think this witness is in a position to
testify when she is really not a party in this email at all.
SC Tong: Sun, forget this email. Ignore
it. Think back to August 2010. At that point in time, would it be fair
to say that the team, yourself as well as those who had been in
Singapore, had not abandoned the project? Correct?
Sun: That’s correct, your Honour.
SC Tong: Efforts were still being taken
to negotiate the budget, to bring down the budget to something that was
more in the interests of lowering the figures and making sure that it
was realistic. Agree?
Sun: Yes, your Honour, we had worked very hard for the album and we still wanted to launch the album at that time.
Friday, May 22, 2015
20 May 2015 – JJ’s EIC (Part 1) (MrsLightnFriends: 22 May 2015)
My original plan was to write more
details about the last witness, Mr Jean-Jacques Lavigne’s
(JJ) Examination-in-chief after I have finished writing part 3 and part 4 of
Sun’s Examination-in-chief.
When I see JJ has to explain to his friends why he said Crossover was world class, I decided to temporary stop writing Sun’s EIC. Just merely one simple reason, I don’t want JJ to be wrongly accused by vicious people.
Recap of JJ’s EIC.
This is in relation to JJ’s Examination-in-chief by Mr Chew on May 20 2015.How did the word “world class” come into picture?
Chew: JJ, I’m going to finish soon. Is the Crossover the vision of the church?
JJ: There is no other vision but the Crossover.
Chew: How important is it to the church?
JJ: That’s the number one calling of the church.
Chew: Number one calling?
JJ: Yeah, it’s the number one calling of the church. It’s not to stay within the premise of the church, it’s really to go out there.
Chew: Did you pray for Sun and Kong?
JJ: Yes, absolutely.
Chew: In relation to the Crossover?
JJ: Yes, absolutely.
Chew: Did you have faith in Sun’s album success?
JJ: Yes, total faith. I was yeah, I was actually, for one, certainly delighted with the works that were being done in the States. I was very impressed with the quality of the production works I thought it was top-notch, world class. Maybe not to the taste of everyone, but it was really up there in terms of quality.
Questions by the Judge.
Judge: Mr Lavigne, I just have one point
to clarify with you. You mentioned that you left the church in 2013. I
don’t think you’ve told us the reason.
JJ: Once I got access to a bit more information about the case and some of the information what was filtering down to some members through some websites and things like this, some members of BBG made the conscious decision of leaving the church, to terminate their membership. I did not terminate my membership, I didn’t step down from the church. I just wanted to wait and see, so to speak. I always want to give people an opportunity of defending themselves as well, so I wanted to hear two sides of the story. At the same time, I had access to information, and yes, I was very suspicious. Then I receive a phone call from one of the church leaders telling me that my cell group was being taken over from me; I was no longer in charge. And that’s it. We were supposed to have a meeting to do the takeover and for the migration, so to speak, but it never happened. And that’s how I was left out, so to speak. I never went back to church. We never had that conversation. Did I answer your question, your Honour?
Judge: Yes. So formally you are still a member of the church?
JJ: Formally, I have not terminated my membership
Judge: But you’ve not been attending.
JJ said, “I don’t know if my membership has been terminated. I have no information whether I’m still a member or not.”
JJ: I have not been attending any of the church services.
Judge: Mr Chew, do you have any questions arising out of what I’ve asked?
Chew: Yes, your Honour. If I could just ask a few more questions relating to this.
Judge: Yes, of course.
Further examination by Mr Chew
Chew: JJ, you left the church the same time as me.
JJ: Yes, probably one month after you.
Chew: That’s about June 2013.
JJ: Absolutely.
Chew: In the months before that, there was information that I’d passed on to you.
JJ: Yes.
Chew: In relating to certain discoveries that I’d come upon?
JJ: Yes.
Chew: JJ, would you confirm that much of the information that I passed on to you had nothing to do with this case?
JJ: Very little information about the bonds. A lot information about something else. Absolutely, yes, your Honour.
Chew: So it was stuff like the MPA, the…
JJ: MPA, copyrights, royalties, such issues. Yes.
Chew: So it was mainly those other issues that coloured your mind?
JJ: Yes, it had nothing to do with the bonds.
At the end of the examination, Chew said, “Actually, JJ, when I was about to start examining you, I forgot to tell you that whatever questions I was putting to you was your frame of mind before 2013. But actually you have done that.”
Chew: Your Honour, that’s all I have to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)